In the last few days, Nigerians have been on edge over a series of security alerts issued by the Embassy of the United States of America in Nigeria for its citizens. The first alert on October 23, entitled, “Security notice – elevated risk of terror attacks,” claimed there was an elevated risk of terror attacks in Nigeria, especially in Abuja.
It added that the targets include, but are not limited to, government buildings, places of worship, schools, markets, shopping malls, hotels, bars, restaurants, athletic gatherings, transport terminals, law enforcement facilities, and international organisations.
Two days later, the US State department, which supervises the Embassy, authorised departures for non-essential staff members and US families in Abuja on account of “the heightened risk of terrorist attack.” Britain, Germany, Australia and Canada followed the US lead, also warning their citizens to avoid non-essential travels to Abuja.
It is within the right of every country to look out for the best interest and safety of its citizens, wherever they are. And we believe that the US, which also issued similar warnings to its citizens in Equatorial Guinea, Chad and South Africa, almost at about the same time, knows why it did so.
What seems unclear, however, is just how far the US authorities may have gone to share any credible intelligence in their possession with their Nigerian counterparts. Of course, we understand that the primary responsibility of the US is to its citizens.
Yet, in a world where security has increasingly become a shared responsibility, and given the extraordinary ramifications of the danger contemplated, we are tempted to believe that in this specific instance, prioritising intelligence sharing, if indeed there was a credible risk, may have been sacrificed on the altar of exceptionalism.