Tinubu’s Benin Republic expedition

by

Reuben ABATI

By Reuben Abati

In the early hours of Sunday, December 7, 2025, there was the shocking news of a military intervention in the Republic of Benin, led by one Lieutenant Colonel Pascal Tigri who seized the Beninese National TV, along with his co-putschists and announced that President Patrice Talon had been deposed, all borders leading to and out of Benin closed and that all democratic institutions had been suspended. Coming barely 11 days after the coup in Guinea Bissau, the threat of a spreading democratic retreat in West Africa and the continent was writ large. Five out of ECOWAS Member States are now ruled by the military: Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Guinea and Guinea Bissau. Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger had quit earlier to form the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).

Nor is the spectre of coups restricted to West Africa: other African countries where coups have taken place between 2020 and now include Chad, Madagascar, Sudan, and Gabon signalling a creeping failure of the democratic project in Africa. The coup in Benin is too close to home. Such is the contiguity between Benin and Nigeria that its former President Thomas Boni Yayi used to refer to the Republic of Benin as Nigeria’s 37th State and Nigerian Presidents as his brothers. Yayi called President Jonathan his brother. He regarded President Obasanjo as “a father.” Besides, both countries share very strong cultural and historical affinities, they share a border on the Eastern flank of about 809 km from the tripoint with Niger in the North down to the Bight of Benin in the South. Patrice Talon who succeeded Yayi in 2016, has maintained a haughty mien towards Nigeria, but when he ran into trouble on December 7, he called on Nigeria for help. This was the second time an attempt would be made on his government. In September 2024, the Benin authorities had discovered a coup plot led by Olivier Boko, a businessman, which was nipped in the bud.

But this time around the coup plotters went as far as seizing the National TV. The Nigerian authorities have reported that Benin made two requests in a Note Verbale: first, they asked Nigeria to help secure the country’s airspace and dislodge the coup plotters, and second to send ground troops to help secure the constitutional order and protect institutions and the population. Nigeria acceded to both requests. A few hours later, loyal forces assisted by Nigeria took control and flushed out the coup plotters who are now on the run. Fourteen of the coup plotters have been arrested. Calm has been restored in Benin. President Talon has since gone on the same State television to thank loyal forces and has promised retribution. “This treachery will not go unpunished”, he said. The last successful coup in the Republic of Benin was in 1972. It is strange that President Talon did not deem it necessary to thank Nigeria – not even a mention. In Nigeria, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has commended the Nigerian Armed Forces for helping to protect democracy in Benin Republic. And here is where the problem lies: Tinubu is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria. But on whose authority or on which authority did he acquiesce to the request by the Republic of Benin and deployed Nigerian troops out of the country to get involved in the Benin crisis, going guns-a-blazing? The Nigerian Presidency has said that it “acted within the ambit of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance.”  The relevant authorities in that regard would be Chapter 8 of the UN Charter which talks about “regional arrangements” and authorizes regional bodies like ECOWAS to prevent conflict in their regions and enforce peace, but with UN authorization. This is further reflected in the idea of an ECOWAS Standby Force, referred to by ECOWAS in its statement on the Benin coup attempt and defined in Articles 21 and 25 (e) of the ECOWAS Protocol for the Mechanism on Conflict Resolution. As at the time of the coup attempt in Benin, there was no standby ECOWAS force in place, and that is why what is called ECOWAS Force is basically often a Nigerian Force. Whereas Nigeria can be a signatory to international conventions, it also has obligations under its own domestic law as a sovereign country especially where deployment of troops to another country is involved.  The question then is: did President Tinubu act lawfully by deploying Nigerian troops to the Republic of Benin, based on a note verbale from the country? Did he act in. line with the supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution which he swore to uphold?

Section 5(4) of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution says “the President shall not declare a state of war between the Federation and another country except with the sanction of a resolution of both Houses of the National Assembly sitting in a joint session and (b) except with the prior approval of the Senate, no member of the armed forces of the Federation shall be deployed on combat duty outside Nigeria.” Section 5(5) says the President “may in consultation with the Defence Council deploy members of the armed forces of the Federation on a limited combat duty outside Nigeria if he is satisfied that the national security is under imminent threat or danger” And if he does that, the President shall, “within seven days seek the consent of the Senate and the Senate shall thereafter give or refuse the said consent within 14 days.” Section 305 dealing with the procedure for proclamation of state of emergency at Sections 305(2) and Section 305 (3) also stresses the role of the legislature in affirming any proclamation by the President in the face of war or imminent danger. A community reading of these Constitutional provisions, with the deliberate use of the phrase “shall” at every turn is to prevent the President of Nigeria becoming a dictator acting unilaterally, to ensure the separation of powers (checks and balances), and to the extent that the deployment of troops would involve huge cost - human and material – to ensure accountability.  Did President Tinubu consult the Defence Council? Did he engage a joint session of the National Assembly before sending our troops to Benin? Was Nigeria under any imminent danger arising from the situation in Benin Republic?

It may be said that a purist application of the law, that is strict legality, may not always serve in certain extra-ordinary circumstances, hence the framers of the law provided the caveat in Section 5(5) that even when the President sends the Nigerian Armed Forces on limited combat duty, he shall still seek the consent of the National Assembly. Apparently, President Tinubu owes us an explanation, and he is duty bound to approach the National Assembly and secure a ratification for his actions in Republic of Benin within the stipulated seven days. He should have done so by now to show good faith. It must be on record that the National Assembly and the National Defence Council are in the know for proper record purposes, and should they decide that Nigerian Armed Forces should stay away from Republic of Benin, so be it. In 2023, President Tinubu had asked for permission to deploy Nigerian troops to Niger Republic as part of an ECOWAS force to dislodge the coup plotters in that country. The request was rejected and that was it. It is important that the Nigerian Presidency does not choose when it is convenient to respect the basic law of the land.

A possible cover story is to argue that the President acted reasonably, Benin is too close to home, and a successful coup in that country could put ideas in some people’s heads. The Tinubu administration has had to break the law to demonstrate that such impunity will not be tolerated anywhere close to its doorstep and that the Nigerian Armed Forces are ready and capable to foil any attempt to disrupt the Constitutional Order.  Nigerian soldiers not only moved on the ground in Benin, working with their Beninese counterparts, they used fighter jets to track and attack the fleeing coupists. They displayed gallantry in the course of that military adventure. But can they please show the same alacrity, promptitude and courage in fighting the Boko Haram insurgents and terrorists in Nigeria? The Save Nigeria Group USA raises a pertinent question when it questioned why the Tinubu administration is unable to protect its own citizens at home but it is so excited flexing muscles in a nieghbouring country. “Nigeria is bleeding, yet its leaders are projecting power outside its borders”, their statement said. “A President must first remove the log in his own eye before acting as a regional policeman. Nigerians deserve protection, not foreign adventures,” the statement added.

There is much wisdom in the position of the Save Nigeria Group USA, but what is curious is the attempt by some other commentators to stretch the argument to the point of absurdity by saying that if Tinubu can go to Benin Republic, guns-a-blazing, then there is nothing wrong in President Trump threatening to come to Nigeria to save Christians who are victims of an alleged genocide. This is a grand example of the fallacy of false equivalence. The circumstances are not the same. The issues are different. Nigeria has a responsibility under international law to protect its citizens (R2P), yet, its sovereignty is sacred. Even when a State fails to observe the R2P doctrine, the machinery for intervention is through the United Nations not through the unilateral violation of a country’s sovereignty, and even at that, the future of the doctrine is complex, tricky and uncertain as earlier seen in Somalia, Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Libya and Somalia. Article II of the American Constitution empowers the American President to defend the American people against real and present danger in form of drug cartels targeting America (Honduras, Venezuela, Panama) but Article 1, section 8 of the same Constitution makes it clear that only Congress has the power to declare war. Some US Presidents may have over-stretched their roles as Commander in Chief under Article II but the War Powers Resolution of 1973, requires the American President to report to Congress within 48 hours of committing American forces to conflict, and the forces must be withdrawn within 60 to 90 days unless Congress approves. This principle of legislative approval for the use of force is a live subject in the United States as it is in other democracies to prevent the abuse of executive powers.

As for those in Nigeria who are insisting that Donald Trump must send troops guns a-blazing to Nigeria, to protect Christians, they must be reminded that by de-marketing their country, by trying to sabotage their own country while hiding under the banner of freedom of expression, they may be walking within the coastlines of treasonable felony. There is no broad consensus yet either among US lawmakers or Nigerians that there is a case of Christian genocide in Nigeria. What is known is that we are all victims of a general regime of insecurity – Christians, Moslems, animists, all of us including the President himself who has been told by a bandit commander that their plan is to kidnap him and at least one Governor! Instigating the invasion of Nigeria by inciting foreigners or others against Nigeria is a criminal offence under Section 38 of the Criminal Code Act. Cap C38 (Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004). There are so many people out there who are busy calling on America to come and invade Nigeria. Should the Tinubu administration decide to identify such persons, their accomplices and their platforms, let no one claim that they are being persecuted, abused or victimized. From President to the ordinary man on the street, Nigerians must begin to learn to live within the bounds of law and decency.