(Photo by Agbebiyi Adekunle via Wikimedia Commons/CC BY-SA 4.0)
In December 2023, the Nigerian military killed 85 civilians through the use of drone strikes in support of its continued fight against Boko Haram. Later that month, another drone strike by the Nigerian Air Force killed at least 64 civilians in Mutumji, Zamfara. These attacks are just two of many recent instances where Nigerian armed forces have killed Nigerian citizens mistakenly in the fight against terrorism.
This phenomenon is not unique to the Nigerian government. Sudan, Somalia, and Mali (among others) have caused numerous civilian casualties in the process of utilizing drones to combat terrorist groups.
Furthermore, state governments are not the only ones committing these atrocities; terrorist groups in the region are reportedly making technological leaps that allow them to rival state militaries. A Nigerian lawmaker in Borno state recently warned that groups like Boko Haram are “using armed drones, weaponized drones, which the Nigerian army is not using. In other words, they are more sophisticated and advanced than the Nigerian army.”
The military implications of these technological advancements are clear. Since 2022, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP)—an offshoot of Boko Haram—has attacked several military bases in Northeast Nigeria using armed drones. At one location in Borno state, the grenades that these drones carried injured five soldiers.
When two elephants fight, it is the grass beneath them that suffers. Regardless of the party responsible for a particular drone strike or the type of drones utilized, civilians across the sub-Saharan region are often unfortunate victims of said attacks.
It’s a Bird, It’s a Plane – No, It’s a Drone
Drone is the generic term referring to both military-grade unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and more commonplace remote-controlled hobby aircraft, which have also made their way into armed conflicts around the world. These various unmanned aerial vehicles range in size from 20 to 1,320 pounds and fall under three categories:
- Class I drones are typically small hand-held drones that hobbyists may use recreationally. In recent years, terrorist groups have found unique ways to use them for attacks and surveillance.
- Class II drones are medium-sized drones often used for surveillance, and
- Class III drones are large, load-carrying weapons used in combat.
Additionally, these three categories of drones are understood to be able to operate at altitudes ranging from 300 to 5,500 metres. The flexibility of these systems has led to their increasing weaponization in various ways. From grenade-strapped first-person-view drones to strikes from more sophisticated unmanned aerial vehicles, the effects of these weapons continue to pervade the region.
To be clear, the use of drones in warfare is nothing new. They were first developed during World War I in the form of rudimentary unmanned radio-controlled aircraft and watercraft. They became more common during the Cold War as spy planes. However, widespread use of drones for striking military targets only began in the 2000s with the War on Terror.
Today, drones are an integral part of warfare. From the United States Armed Forces to Iran-backed militias, state and non-state actors employ drones almost universally in contemporary conflict, with devastating impacts on civilians.
The Turn Towards Drones
Why are governments and terrorists alike turning to the use of drone attacks in their ongoing conflicts? First, the reduced cost of waging war with these drones makes them more accessible for terrorist groups who are less well funded than national militaries. The advent of cheaper, less technologically advanced drones in recent years has been heaven-sent in that regard.
Even if they do not possess all the capabilities of high-tech drones used by state militaries, the small drones these groups use still have immense utility. Drones are a scarily inexpensive and effective means of waging war and spreading propaganda compared to traditional methods of warfare. Several analysts have also highlighted the possibility that terrorist organisations within the region are purchasing commercial, long-range drones.
Countries within sub-Saharan Africa also utilise this cost-saving rationale. As of March 2025, at least 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have gained access to long-range drones, and many of them boast about how these weapons will enable them to fight more effectively against various terrorist groups.
Finally, unmanned aerial vehicles reduce the need for human involvement in carrying out attacks and, as a result, reduce the likelihood of losing soldiers in combat. It is important to note, however, that this method of calculating “cost” often ignores the innocent human lives lost to drone warfare. A look at the lives lost shows that the use of drones by state governments has a greater cost than just the amount spent.
As mentioned earlier, between November 2021 and November 2024, nearly 1,000 civilians were reportedly killed by drone strikes carried out by governments within sub-Saharan Africa. In the pursuit of terrorists, governments within the region have repeatedly put the lives of the innocents they are supposed to protect at risk and have justified it through reduced costs, which fail to acknowledge the innocent lives lost.
Up, Up and Away
Within sub-Saharan Africa, several agreements and initiatives aim to halt the spread of traditional weapons within the region. However, these are largely inadequate in addressing the widespread use of drones. Laws specifically regulating the use of drones in conflict zones may be found in individual countries, but there is a notable lack of regional coordination to prevent their proliferation.
On the global stage, the various treaties and agreements are largely ineffective. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) has only 35 signatories and primarily focuses on preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The Wassenaar Arrangement on the export of dual-use military technology has only 42 signatories and is largely non-binding due to its voluntary nature. The most direct agreement, the Berlin Memorandum, is a list of recommendations for countries to stop terrorists’ use of unmanned aerial systems and does not mention unlawful use by said countries.
As such, there remains a general lack of accountability for the killing of innocent civilians.
We Need New Laws
One avenue to stop the spread and use of these weapons is to focus on their sources. The production of most drones can be traced to a few countries: Iran, Turkey, and China. An approach that ensures that these countries do not sell these weapons to terrorist organizations and careless governments is needed. The use of targeted sanctions when terrorist organizations utilize a weapon from any of these sources or when governments create civilian casualties would be useful for creating a deterrent against the irresponsible sales and use of unmanned aerial vehicles.
Additionally, regional coordination and cooperation between governments within sub-Saharan Africa remain imperative to prevent the deaths of their civilians at the hands of terrorists using these drones. Data showcasing what tools terrorist groups use and their capacities for attacks must continue to be shared without barriers and in good faith.
Drone technology is here, and it is too late to put the metaphorical genie back in the bottle. However, stricter structures that emphasize accountability and responsibility for drones and their usage are needed. While the Berlin Memorandum is a commendable attempt at establishing a system of accountability, its advisory and non-binding status renders it somewhat ineffective. Even UN resolutions against the spread of drones are largely toothless. The use of the aforementioned targeted sanctions against irresponsible countries would grant them some bite and would go a long way towards keeping civilians across sub-Saharan Africa safe.
Edited by Anthony Hablak
