“Whether adequate diplomacy by Nigeria has been put into the ensuing row between Nigeria and the AES states or to secure the release of the military personnel and aircraft still hangs in a cloud of doubts. But whatever the the case, the issue is going beyond the ordinary…”
Today makes it one week since 11 Nigerian military personnel are held in Burkina Faso, a neighbouring West African country. The Nigerian Air Force heavy-duty personnel and equipment carrier, C-130, reportedly flying to Portugal for a turnaround maintenance, made an emergency landing in Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso due to an undisclosed inflight incident.
The Burkinabe military authorities and the AES coalition deemed this as unacceptable, and and called it an “unfriendly act”. Consequently, the Burkinabe Government detained the crew and passengers (11 in all) and made a thorough search of the plane, with no clear indication of what they found or if they found anything, and what would happen thereafter.
The Nigerian Air Force (NAF) had come out to confirm the incident, claiming that the flight had no link to the Republic of Benin coup foiling of the previous day, no hideous mission, and that it made the landing because Bobo-Dioulasso was the closest at the time, en route Portugal.
NAF further claimed that their act had not violated any law, given the international aviation rules and best practices, which allow for flights in danger to immediately land in any available airport even without permission, authorisation, or clearance.
However, the Confederation of Alliance of Sahel States (AES) had a different version of the incident. The AES leaders claimed that the plane had no clearance to fly over their airspace or in that particular region at the time in the first place, and that they had therefore forced it to land because of their suspicion of possible ulterior motives.
The AES leaders describing the act as unfriendly was because of what was expected of a neighbouring state, notifying them if it were to use their airspace, even before the emergency landing. Nigeria possibly did not do this due diligence because of that ugly national culture of carelessness.
However, whether adequate diplomacy by Nigeria has been put into the ensuing row between Nigeria and the AES states or to secure the release of the military personnel and aircraft still hangs in a cloud of doubts. But whatever the the case, the issue is going beyond the ordinary as those military guys and the national military asset, the aircraft, are still in Burkina Faso. That is one unfriendly act, too many.
Reports have it that the soldiers have been moved to an isolated location for detention. NAF had previously claimed that they were well handled and later released. But this turned out to be false; they are still in that foreign land, held like hostages.
Holding the Nigerian military personnel in an isolated detention facility almost a week after, is hostage-taking. If Burkina Faso later demands financial compensation and military equipment in exchange for the 11 soldiers and aircraft, like it did to France after holding their four soldiers for over a year captive, then it would be no longer different from what the bandits are doing in Northern Nigeria.
In 2023, those French soldiers were accused of espionage and held captive till 2024, until money and weapons changed hands before those French hostages were released.
If Burkina tries this again, this time with Nigeria, it would be tantamount to kidnapping for ransom. Burkina Faso may be using a criminal act as a state policy. That is a terrorist approach. And it is the exact way bandits in Northern Nigeria, flowing from the Sahel, including Burkina Faso deal with their captives.
France may have fallen for the ugly trick because it is a despised former colonial power in Africa, but Nigeria, an African country and a neighbour, would be the wrong choice for such criminal ransom-for-captive diplomacy. The Federal Government should start considering a hardline stance. That is what obstinate neighbours deserve. America is currently doing that with Venezuela, so, it is nothing new.
Those who push for more diplomacy may be right. But there is no harm in strategically planning ahead; that is, putting all the cards, including offensive ones, on the table, just in case. There are fears that Nigeria’s economy is too fragile for a confrontation with three Sahel nations and Russia, their backer.
But first, Russia will not do more than mediate in any African conflict, as Nigeria is even a bigger economic partner and political ally in global politics at all levels for Russia. Russia needs Nigeria, not only for extractive purposes like the AES, but also for geopolitical advantages beyond West Africa. Nigeria also buys more military hardware from Russia than the three AES states combined.
Second, Nigeria has a war economy enabled by the long war against terrorism, making it to climb to the 3rd Strongest Military in Africa, and 31st strongest in the world, based on the Global Fire Power Index 2025.
The losses and weakness of the military at home must be understood from the country’s complex ethnic, political and political differences and side-taking, which plays out in the fight fight against domestic terror. It is always a different ballgame outside when such primordial sentiments do not count for political and military leadership.
•Professor Folarin, a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for the Future of Knowledge, University of Johannesburg, South Africa, teaches Politics at Texas State University, United States.
