By Aminu Hussaini Sagagi
“The U.S’s accusation of alleged “Christian Genocide” against Nigeria with a threat of possible military action against the country would constitute a breach of International Law.
Analysts warn that, without recourse to any United Nation’s declaration, however noble the US unilateral intervention might seem within the country’s public policy perspective, the “action” smacks of violation of the very principles that sustain the global order.
Barrister Aminu Hussain Sagagi in this article highlights why Kano State Government align with the Federal Government stand, examining how the US’s threat against Nigeria would further escalate strain relationship and the resultant effect may lead Nigeria to embrace alternative global partners such as China or Russia – a shift that could reshape the regional alliances”.
In a move that has sent ripples through diplomatic circles across Africa, U.S. President Donald J. Trump has designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) under U.S. religious-freedom laws, alleging a “genocide of Christians.” He also warned of possible U.S. military action, a statement that has sparked intense debate over international law, sovereignty and the limits of moral intervention in global affairs.
Trump, speaking via his Truth Social platform, accused Nigeria’s leadership of “turning a blind eye” to the alleged killings of Christians, calling the situation “an existential threat to Christianity.” The U.S. Department of State confirmed that the designation was made under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which enables sanctions against nations found to be violating religious freedom in a “systematic and egregious” manner.
The Federal Government of Nigeria, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has rejected both the allegations and the label, describing them as “misinformed and unfounded.” Officials insist that Nigeria remains committed to protecting citizens of all faiths and that the violence ravaging parts of the country stems from terrorism, banditry and resource competition, not state-sponsored religious persecution.
Amid the diplomatic storm, the Kano State Government, led by His Excellency, Alhaji Abba Kabir Yusuf, has declared its full solidarity with the Federal Government and the People of Nigeria. In a statement issued in Kano, Governor Yusuf reaffirmed the State’s unwavering loyalty to the Nigerian federation and condemned attempts to portray the nation as a site of religious genocide. “Nigeria is a united and resilient country where Christians and Muslims have lived together for generations,” the statement read. “Kano stands firmly with the Federal Government in defending our sovereignty, our diversity and our dignity in the comity of nations.”
While the CPC designation itself is primarily diplomatic, Trump’s accompanying threat of deploying U.S. forces has raised serious legal questions. Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, member States are prohibited from using or threatening force against the territorial integrity of another Member State unless in self-defence or with UN Security Council authorization. Without Nigeria’s consent, analysts warn, any U.S. military action would constitute a breach of International Law.
Nigeria is not a failed State; any unilateral intervention, however noble it may seem within the public policy perspective of the USA or Europe, would violate the very principles that sustain the global order.
The use of the term genocide is particularly contentious. Under the Genocide Convention of 1948, genocide requires proof of intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic or religious group. Human-rights organizations acknowledge that Nigeria faces severe insecurity – including attacks by Boko Haram, ISWAP and armed militias – but warn against oversimplifying the conflict as one of religion.
The violence affects Muslims and Christians alike. It’s driven by a noxious mix of poverty, climate stress, extremism and weak governance – not by any single religious agenda.
The U.S. move risks straining one of its most strategic relationships in Africa. Nigeria is a key partner in counterterrorism, regional stability and economic development. The Nigerian Senate has called for calm diplomacy, urging engagement with Washington. The African Union has also expressed concern, warning that “unilateral actions under humanitarian pretexts” could undermine African sovereignty and set troubling precedents.
Should relations deteriorate further, experts warn, Nigeria could pivot toward alternative global partners such as China or Russia – a shift that could reshape regional alliances.
Trump’s rhetoric has revived the age-old debate about the intersection of morality and power in international relations. Proponents say Washington is right to speak out against persecution, while critics argue that selective interventions erode credibility and risk weaponing human rights.
“Religious freedom is an important value,” says Dr. Samuel Adebayo, a Nigerian diplomat and governance scholar. “But turning moral advocacy into a pretext for coercion blurs the line between protection and interference.”
For now, Nigeria’s leadership – buoyed by broad domestic support, including that of Kano State and other subnational governments – appears united in rejecting the U.S. narrative. While sanctions or diplomatic restrictions could follow, actual military action remains unlikely and legally indefensible without UN approval or Nigerian consent.
As Nigeria continues to confront terrorism, inequality and communal conflicts, its leaders insist that reform and reconciliation must come from within – not through threats from abroad. The unfolding episode, analysts say, will test not just Nigeria’s resilience, but also the world’s commitment to the delicate balance between sovereignty and global conscience.
Barrister Aminu Hussaini is a Special Adviser on Justice/Constitutional Matters to His Excellency, the Executive Governor of Kano State, Alhaji Abba Kabir Yusuf
Middle-Belt Times 