By Blaise Udunze
There is a deeply uncomfortable question Nigeria must begin to ask itself. Does the country truly believe in its own sovereignty? Perhaps this might be Nigeria’s most uncomfortable question; it is also its most important.
Nigeria is Africa’s most populous nation, also known as one of the continent’s most strategically important countries and a major political and economic force. One common occurrence is that whenever a major political controversy, corruption allegation, electoral dispute or governance crisis emerges, the instinct of many Nigerians is increasingly to look beyond the country’s borders for validation.
Someone appeals to Washington. Someone waits for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Someone asks Britain to investigate. Someone hopes a foreign court will provide the final verdict. Someone believes that a foreign government or institution possesses the answer to a problem Nigeria itself should ordinarily be capable of confronting.
One is therefore compelled to ask a question that should embarrass Africa’s largest democracy. Who exactly governs Nigeria: Abuja, Washington or London?
One that speaks directly to the concern of who is in charge of steering the affairs of the country can be tied to the latest controversy surrounding calls by Atiku Abubakar and other opposition figures for the United States FBI to release records relating to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has again brought this question into sharp focus. Also, one would wonder what could be going through the mind of Nigerian artist Davido when he appealed to US President Donald Trump and the international community in August 2026 to monitor the Osun State governorship election and protect voters from potential intimidation.
One outstanding fact is that the demand for transparency and access to legitimately disclosable information is definitely not, in itself, wrong. Public officials, particularly those seeking or holding the highest offices, should never be beyond scrutiny.
Indeed, foreign records may sometimes contain information relevant to legitimate public debate. Where alleged crimes, financial transactions, assets or investigations cross national borders, cooperation between governments and law-enforcement agencies is both necessary and unavoidable.
But the larger question remains whether Nigeria has reached a point where some of its most consequential political debates appear to depend so heavily on what foreign institutions choose to disclose.
That question is not an argument against foreign scrutiny. It is an argument for understanding the difference between international cooperation and national dependence. The distinction matters.
International cooperation occurs when Nigeria’s institutions remain capable of performing their responsibilities but require assistance because evidence, assets, transactions or suspects fall outside Nigerian jurisdiction. An investigation in Nigeria may require information from the United States. Stolen assets may be located in Britain. A suspect may reside in another country. Financial transactions may pass through multiple jurisdictions.
In such circumstances, Nigeria should cooperate fully with foreign governments and institutions. That is not a weakness. That is how modern states function.
But dependence, which has been a huge challenge begins when Nigerians come to believe that their political and legal institutions cannot establish the truth, administer justice or hold leaders accountable unless a foreign government first validates the process.
Cooperation strengthens sovereignty. Dependence weakens it. The difference between the two may appear subtle, but it is fundamental.
A sovereign Nigeria should be able to say: “We have conducted our investigation, followed due process and established the relevant facts. We require your assistance because part of this matter falls within your jurisdiction.” That is cooperation.
What should concern Nigerians is the opposite mentality: “We cannot know the truth about our own country until America tells us.” That is dependence.
The controversy surrounding foreign records relating to Nigerian political leaders should therefore be viewed with balance. There is nothing inherently wrong with demanding transparency from foreign institutions where those institutions possess relevant information. Nor is it wrong for citizens, journalists or political actors to pursue legally available records.
The problem begins when a foreign file becomes treated as the ultimate instrument for determining Nigeria’s political future.
What happens if the records are released? And what happens if they are not? Let’s, more importantly, ask if Nigerian voters would surrender their constitutional responsibility to determine who governs them to a foreign law-enforcement agency? Another key question is would a document originating from Washington automatically replace political organisation, policy debates, legal processes and the judgment of Nigerian voters?
Surely not. Nigeria’s president is elected by Nigerians, not by the FBI. That does not mean Nigerians should ignore relevant evidence from anywhere in the world. Facts should be examined, evidence should be tested and leaders should answer legitimate questions.
But democracy cannot be outsourced. The FBI is an American law-enforcement institution. It operates under American laws and within the framework of American national interests and legal responsibilities. It is entitled to investigate matters within its jurisdiction, just as Nigerian agencies are entitled to investigate matters within theirs.
The FBI is not Nigeria’s electoral commission. American courts do not conduct Nigerian elections. The White House is not an extension of Nigeria’s democratic process. And no foreign president should become the political referee of Nigeria’s elections. This should not be controversial.
Nigeria gained political independence in 1960, but political independence does not automatically guarantee institutional or psychological independence. A country can have its own flag, Constitution and elected government while still struggling with the belief that foreign institutions are inherently more credible than domestic ones. That belief has consequences.
A Nigerian investigation may be dismissed as compromised while a foreign investigation is immediately treated as conclusive. A Nigerian court judgment may be questioned while a foreign ruling is regarded as final moral validation. A Nigerian election may struggle for legitimacy because citizens place greater confidence in foreign observers than in domestic institutions. A corruption allegation may gain greater public attention only when an American or British institution becomes involved.
Foreign scrutiny can be useful. No doubt, in some cases, it can expose wrongdoing that domestic institutions have failed to uncover. Let it be re-emphasized, foreign scrutiny can be useful because international journalism, foreign courts, financial regulators and law-enforcement agencies have all played important roles globally in exposing corruption and recovering stolen assets.
Nigeria should not reject such scrutiny simply because it comes from outside its borders. But the emphasis here is that neither should Nigerians conclude that only foreign institutions can tell the truth about Nigeria.
The real issue is not whether foreign scrutiny should be welcomed or rejected. The real and core issue is why Nigerian institutions so often struggle to command the same level of public confidence. That is Nigeria’s deeper crisis.
Many Nigerians do not trust Nigerian institutions enough and the reason is simply known to all. When citizens believe investigations can be politically manipulated, they look elsewhere. When corruption prosecutions appear selective, they search for external accountability. When electoral institutions struggle to command universal confidence, foreign validation becomes more important than it should be. When powerful political figures appear capable of influencing domestic institutions, citizens naturally begin searching for institutions beyond their reach.
This is not simply a foreign-dependence problem. It is an institutional-confidence problem. And Nigeria cannot solve it by merely telling citizens to stop looking abroad. Trust cannot be commanded. Trust must be earned.
Nigeria’s institutions must demonstrate that they can investigate the powerful as effectively as they investigate the powerless. They must prove that political affiliation does not determine whether justice is pursued. They must show that public office does not provide immunity from scrutiny.
Nigeria already has institutions responsible for investigating corruption and protecting public accountability. Ironically, today, Nigeria has “sophisticated” agencies like the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offenses Commission (ICPC), Nigeria Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU), Code of Conduct Bureau, police, courts, regulatory agencies and the National Assembly with constitutional oversight responsibilities but at the same time, Nigerians would categorically say that they hardly have complete trust in them and it is where the contradiction lies.
The problem is therefore not simply the absence of institutions. The problem is whether Nigerians believe those institutions can act independently.
Can they investigate serving officials? Can they investigate politically connected individuals? Can they investigate powerful members of the ruling establishment? Can they follow evidence wherever it leads, regardless of who is affected?
These questions are central to Nigeria’s future. The country does not necessarily need another anti-corruption agency. It needs institutions that are more difficult to politically capture.
Anti-corruption agencies should enjoy genuine operational independence. This independence will show that their leadership and funding structures should strengthen public confidence. Investigations must be guided by evidence rather than political convenience. Prosecutions must not appear to be weapons reserved for political opponents. The judiciary must be capable of resolving important cases within a reasonable period.
The ultimate test of institutional independence is not how effectively an agency investigates yesterday’s government. It is whether it can investigate today’s government. That is where Nigeria’s sovereignty will ultimately be tested.
The same principle applies to the politics of 2027. Whether one supports President Bola Tinubu or opposes him, his political future should ultimately be determined through Nigeria’s constitutional and democratic processes and nothing less.
One thing that must be taken into cognizance is that if the opposition believes the government has failed, it should say so clearly. It should challenge economic policies. It should offer alternatives. It should address insecurity, unemployment, poverty and the rising cost of living. It should organise at the grassroots. It should build coalitions. It should present credible candidates. It should persuade Nigerians. That is politics.
Foreign documents may contribute to public debate. They may raise legitimate questions. They may even contain information requiring legal or political scrutiny. But a document is not a political strategy.
No foreign institution can manufacture the grassroots support that a political movement has failed to build. No foreign government can permanently substitute for political organisation. And no external intervention can replace the difficult work of persuading Nigerian voters.
Nigeria should therefore avoid two dangerous extremes. The first is rejecting foreign scrutiny simply because it is foreign. That would be counterproductive in an interconnected world where corruption, terrorism, cybercrime and illicit financial flows regularly cross national borders.
The second is believing that foreign institutions must always rescue Nigeria from problems that Nigerian institutions should be capable of addressing. Both extremes are unhealthy.
Nigeria needs engagement without submission. Cooperation without dependence. Scrutiny without the surrender of political agency.
The United States, Britain and other countries can be valuable partners. They can share intelligence, provide evidence, assist with asset recovery, support extradition and investigate crimes committed within their jurisdictions. Nigeria should welcome legitimate cooperation. But Nigeria must also build institutions capable of doing their part.
A country that depends entirely on foreign governments to expose its corruption, recover its assets, validate its elections or determine its political future is not exercising sovereignty to its fullest potential.
Sovereignty is not isolation. It does not mean refusing assistance. It does not mean rejecting foreign evidence. It does not mean pretending Nigeria can solve transnational crimes alone. Sovereignty means having the institutional capacity to engage the world as a partner rather than approaching the world as a permanent petitioner. That is the distinction Nigeria must understand.
Perhaps the most important question is not whether Nigerians should seek information from the FBI or any other foreign institution. They should pursue facts wherever facts legitimately exist.
The more important question is this: What will Nigeria do with the facts once they are known? Will Nigerian institutions investigate credible allegations? Will the legal system test evidence fairly? Will political parties present competing visions? Will voters make informed choices? Will institutions act without fear or political interference?
Those are the questions that will determine the strength of Nigeria’s democracy. Because after every foreign file has been released, every international investigation concluded and every external opinion expressed, Nigeria will still belong to Nigerians.
The FBI cannot fix Nigeria’s economy. Washington cannot conduct Nigeria’s elections. London cannot build Nigeria’s institutions. Foreign governments cannot manufacture accountable leadership for Nigerians.
That responsibility cannot be outsourced. Nigeria should welcome the world as a partner. It should accept legitimate scrutiny. It should pursue international cooperation wherever evidence, assets and criminal activity cross its borders. But it must never surrender its responsibility to govern itself.
The true test of sovereignty is not refusing foreign cooperation. It is possessing institutions strong enough to cooperate with the world without becoming dependent on it. Nigeria does not need isolation. Nigeria does not need foreign permission.
Nigeria needs credible institutions; confident citizens and a political culture mature enough to understand that the world can help us but it cannot become Nigeria for us.
Blaise, a journalist and PR professional, writes from Lagos and can be reached via: blaise.udunze@gmail.com
