Somali, Nigerian military chiefs meet in Kigali to deepen counterterrorism partnership

In Kigali, a quiet pledge between Somalia and Nigeria hints at a broader shift in Africa’s fight against extremism

On a mild Saturday in Kigali, two senior soldiers from different ends of the continent sat down and agreed to swap hard-won lessons from the battlefield. Somalia’s Land Forces Commander, Major General Sahal Abdullahi Omar—widely known as General Khalid—met Nigeria’s Infantry Commander, Major General Usman Abdulmumin Yusuf, to map out deeper military cooperation. The plan: share combat experience, expand joint training, and tighten links between their armies as both nations hammer away at entrenched insurgencies.

It was not a summit with blaring sirens or red carpets. But for those who have watched Africa’s security landscape evolve over the past decade, the symbolism mattered. Somalia and Nigeria are anchored on opposite shores of the continent, yet both are grinding through long wars with stubborn extremist groups—al‑Shabaab in the Horn of Africa and Boko Haram/ISWAP in the Lake Chad Basin. These are movements that adapt quickly, learn from each other, and leverage fragile governance and rough terrain to survive.

“This meeting is part of the Somali National Army’s efforts to strengthen international cooperation in the fields of security and counter‑terrorism,” the Somali government said afterward. The engagement, the statement added, aligns with Mogadishu’s broader drive to build and equip the Somali National Army—as the African Union draws down its multinational presence and shifts responsibility back to Somalia’s own forces.

Why this matters now

There is a quiet transition under way across the continent. The African Union’s security missions are recalibrating; donor funding is tighter; and capitals from Bamako to Mogadishu are under pressure to shoulder more of their own defense. In Somalia, the phased drawdown of the African Union’s mission has already forced a reckoning: can national forces—backed by regional partners—hold liberated territory, protect civilians, and keep supply lines open once external troops leave? In Nigeria, security leaders juggle the northeastern insurgency, persistent banditry in the northwest, and communal violence in the middle belt, competing for finite resources and attention.

That is why a meeting like this in Kigali—quiet, technical, and focused—can be more consequential than it first appears. The two armies are not talking about grandiose alliances. They are asking: What works? What fails? How do you sustain an infantry company in remote terrain with limited air support? How do you capture an insurgent commander without triggering mass displacement? How do you clear IED belts without losing hard-to-replace specialists? These are the tradecraft questions that save lives.

Shared battles, different geographies

Nigeria’s military has refined methods to tackle insurgents who embed in villages and use coercion and fear to control local economies. It has also learned—sometimes painfully—how vital civilian protection is to sustaining legitimacy. Somalia’s forces, for their part, have become adept at countering complex urban attacks and vehicle-borne bombs, while coordinating with regional allies along long supply corridors that stretch through scrub and pastureland. Each side brings strengths the other can adapt.

There is also a deeper recognition that extremist groups are not static. Analysts have tracked cross-pollination among jihadist factions across borders—tactics shared over encrypted channels, propaganda blended across languages, and movement of fighters seeking new fronts. Countering that requires a counter-network: militaries and police agencies swapping threat intelligence, engineers comparing notes on homemade explosives, and commanders integrating lessons on how to hold terrain without alienating the communities that live there.

Kigali as a backdrop

Rwanda has become a regional hub for quiet security diplomacy—not just because of conference facilities, but because Rwandan forces themselves have been active in complex theaters from Mozambique’s Cabo Delgado to the Central African Republic. Kigali’s meeting rooms are familiar ground for African commanders who prefer candid exchanges to ceremony.

What this cooperation could look like

• Targeted training: Courses on counter-IED, small-unit tactics in semi-urban settings, and convoy security that blend experiences from Mogadishu’s streets with Nigeria’s rural battlefronts.
• Noncommissioned officer development: Building NCO corps that can make disciplined decisions under stress—a proven anchor for professional infantry forces.
• Intelligence sharing: Practical mechanisms to flag tactics migrating across regions, including shifts in IED triggers, ambush patterns, or fundraising networks.
• Civil-military coordination: Approaches to minimize civilian harm, manage checkpoints fairly, and rebuild trust after operations—critical for winning more than a tactical victory.
• Logistics in austere environments: Keeping units fed, fueled, and rotating on time when roads are unsafe and airlift is scarce.

The political and human stakes

The people who stand to benefit—or suffer—most from these choices are civilians in places where the fighting is intimate and close. In Somalia, families in market towns know the sound of an incoming mortar round and the uneasy quiet that precedes a complex attack. In Nigeria’s northeast, farmers still weigh each planting season against the risk of raids. The wars are not abstract. They shape whether a child goes to school, whether a shopkeeper reopens after an attack, and whether young men decide to flee, join the fight, or try to wait it out.

Both countries have also faced legitimate scrutiny over conduct in the field. Accountability is not a footnote—it is part of what determines whether a military gains or loses the public’s trust. Any deeper cooperation will have to keep human rights and civilian protection front and center, both because it is right and because it is strategically necessary.

Global headwinds, local choices

There is no shortage of international advice in this space. But budgets are tighter in Washington and Brussels, and the aid-and-security architectures that once seemed fixed are shifting. That puts more weight on African-led arrangements—bilateral or subregional—that nudge progress forward without waiting on a grand design.

Somalia’s army, increasingly in the lead, will rely on partnerships that are practical and sustained rather than episodic. Nigeria’s military, stretched across multiple fronts, can use credible, battle-tested insights to reduce costly mistakes. Neither side is promising miracles. But incremental improvements—fewer IED casualties this month than last, better discipline at a checkpoint, an operation that clears militants without uprooting a town—add up.

Questions to watch

• Resourcing: Will both governments commit the funds and time needed for training cycles, exchanges, and equipment upkeep?
• Continuity: Can cooperation survive political turnover, budget squeezes, and shifting donor priorities?
• Metrics: How will success be measured—by territory held, attacks prevented, or improvements in civilian security?
• Transparency: Will lessons and outcomes be shared openly enough to build public trust at home?

Not every meeting of generals changes the arc of a conflict. But some change the tempo in ways that matter. The conversation in Kigali came without fanfare, but it reflects a truth seasoned officers know: wars like these are won by steady learning, disciplined adaptation, and alliances that make both sides a little better at the job nobody wishes they had to do.

By Ali Musa
Axadle Times international–Monitoring.