Washington’s $346 Million Arms Deal With Nigeria: Precision Weapons, Old Concerns, and New Questions

By Ephraim Agbo

The United States has approved a possible $346 million arms sale to Nigeria, reviving an old debate about security needs, civilian protection, and the delicate balance of Washington’s Africa policy. The package, announced by the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in August 2025, covers thousands of precision and unguided munitions, fuze systems, and rockets intended for Nigeria’s air force.

For Abuja, the deal is a lifeline in a long war against Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and heavily armed criminal gangs. For Washington, it is about securing an ally, protecting regional trade routes, and keeping influence in Africa’s most populous country. Yet for human rights groups, the deal raises alarms that history may repeat itself — with civilians paying the price.

---

What Nigeria Is Buying This Time

The DSCA’s notification to Congress lists an extensive shopping list:

• 1,002 MK-82 general-purpose 500 lb bombs – unguided, but convertible into precision weapons.
• 1,002 MXU-650 Air Foil Groups – kits that turn MK-82s into Paveway II laser-guided bombs (GBU-12).
• 515 MXU-1006 kits for 250 lb Paveway II bombs (GBU-58).
• 1,517 MAU-169/209 computer control groups – essential for guiding Paveway bombs.
• 1,002 FMU-152 programmable fuzes – modern fuzes that improve strike effectiveness.
• 5,000 APKWS II rockets – advanced guided rockets designed for precision strikes on mobile or concealed targets.

Alongside these munitions, the package includes spares, test equipment, training, and technical support. U.S. officials stress that Nigeria “has a continuing need for this type of capability to counter existing and future threats.”

---

How We Got Here: A Troubled History of Arms Sales

This is not Washington’s first big sale to Abuja. The U.S.–Nigeria arms relationship has swung back and forth over the past decade, often shaped by human rights debates:

• 2014–2017: Under President Obama, sales were slowed or blocked after reports of Nigerian air force strikes killing civilians. Washington cited Nigeria’s poor human rights record.
• 2017–2020: The Trump administration loosened restrictions. In 2017, it cleared a deal for 12 A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft, delivered in 2021. In 2022, Washington approved a $997 million package for 12 AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters, spare engines, night-vision systems, and training.
• 2025: Now comes the latest $346 million package, designed to equip Nigeria’s growing fleet of strike aircraft with modern guided bombs and rockets.

The pattern is consistent: initial hesitation from Washington, lobbying from Nigeria, strong objections from rights groups, and eventual approval framed as essential for counterterrorism.

---

Nigeria’s Security Crisis

Why does Abuja keep pushing for more weapons? The answer lies in the sheer scale of Nigeria’s security crisis.

• Northeast: Boko Haram and ISWAP continue to attack towns, villages, and military positions.
• Northwest and Middle Belt: Armed “bandit” groups conduct mass kidnappings, cattle raids, and extortion.
• Southeast: Separatist agitations and unrest add to the instability.
• Gulf of Guinea: Oil theft, piracy, and smuggling remain headaches for the state.

The Nigerian military is overstretched, and airpower is seen as the one tool that can strike hard-to-reach insurgent camps. Guided bombs and rockets promise more precise strikes and fewer collateral casualties — at least in theory.

---

Civilian Harm and Human Rights Concerns

But history complicates the picture. Nigerian air operations have repeatedly led to civilian deaths:

• In December 2023, a Nigerian military drone strike in Kaduna killed dozens at a religious gathering.
• In earlier years, airstrikes in Borno and Yobe states also hit civilian settlements.

These incidents explain why Washington has often hesitated. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and CIVIC (Center for Civilians in Conflict) have all urged the U.S. to condition sales on clear accountability mechanisms. They argue that precision weapons alone do not prevent tragedy — sound intelligence, careful targeting, and transparent investigations are equally crucial.

Rights groups warn that without reforms, Washington risks becoming complicit in future civilian harm.

---

Political and Public Reaction in Nigeria

The Nigerian government has welcomed the deal. Officials frame it as proof that Washington recognizes Nigeria as a serious partner in counterterrorism. Military spokesmen argue that limits on arms sales have weakened the fight against Boko Haram and bandits.

But civil society groups see things differently. Some Nigerian commentators call the defense sector a “black hole,” pointing out that billions of dollars have been poured into arms over the past decade with little improvement in security. Critics fear the new weapons could be misused, stolen, or deployed recklessly — worsening mistrust between the military and civilians.

Ordinary Nigerians are torn. Many want better security and don’t care where the weapons come from. But there is also frustration that after years of massive defense spending, kidnappings and raids remain a daily threat.

---

Why Washington Approved the Sale

For the U.S., the sale is about more than Nigeria’s insurgency. The State Department explicitly tied the deal to broader U.S. foreign policy goals in Africa:

• Strategic Ally: Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country and largest economy. Washington wants it stable and aligned.
• Regional Security: A stronger Nigerian military helps contain Islamist groups that could spill into Niger, Chad, and Cameroon.
• Maritime Trade: The Gulf of Guinea is a vital shipping corridor. U.S. oil and trade interests depend on its security.
• Geopolitical Competition: As Russia and China expand their footprint in Africa, Washington wants to maintain leverage by being Nigeria’s preferred arms supplier.

---

The Congressional Check

Under U.S. law, Congress has 30 days to review the sale and can pass a resolution of disapproval. While such moves are rare, lawmakers often use the review window to demand answers about oversight, training, and safeguards. Past sales to Nigeria have faced similar scrutiny, especially over civilian harm.

---

What to Watch For

1. Oversight and accountability: Will the Nigerian military publish findings when civilians are harmed?
2. End-use monitoring: Will U.S. officials track how the weapons are used?
3. Training: How much instruction will Nigerian pilots and commanders get on minimizing collateral damage?
4. Public trust: Will Nigerians actually see an improvement in safety, or will insecurity continue despite new weapons?

---

The Bottom Line

The U.S.–Nigeria arms deal is more than a commercial transaction. It is a test of whether modern munitions, in the hands of a military with a checkered human rights record, can actually bring peace to a country battered by insurgency, banditry, and unrest.

If used responsibly, precision bombs and guided rockets could reduce civilian casualties and give Nigeria a sharper edge in its battles. If misused, they could deepen mistrust, inflame grievances, and confirm the fears of human rights advocates.

For Washington, the deal reflects a strategic calculation: Nigeria is too important to ignore. For Nigerians, the calculation is more personal: will these weapons finally make their homes safer?