President Trump’s Threat: Matters Arising

Shivers must have gone down the spine of the Nigerian Government last week, when President Donald Trump openly issued a threat to come into Nigeria ‘guns blazing’ to destroy Nigerian terrorist enclaves in defence of Nigerian Christians who have been killed in their thousands in the past few years. In response to what President Trump referred as genocidal attacks against Nigerian Christians, invading Nigeria might be the only option. Political Pundits have advised President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to take Trump’s threat seriously, and not to treat the matter with levity. In this National Discourse, Prof Sebastine Hon, SAN; Rear Admiral K Bolanle Ati-John Rtd; Gozie Francis Moneke; Sa’adiyyah Adebisi Hassan; Badamasi Suleiman Gandu; Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje and Marx Ikongbeh delve into the complex issues surrounding this matter, to determine whether President Trump has the moral justification or otherwise to invade Nigeria, ostensibly to defend Nigeria’s persecuted Christians 

The Donald Trump Warning Shots and International Public Law

Professor Sebastine T. Hon, SAN

Broad introduction

Drawing from the benumbing aloofness of the international community to the atrocious genocide, ethnic cleansing and other sundry war crimes that took place in Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s, the United Nations World Summit unanimously voted, on October 24, 2005, for and signed what was termed the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) Document.  Paragraph 138 of this Document stipulated that each individual State had responsibility to protect its populations from these heinous crimes, while Paragraph 139 mandated the international community, through the UN, to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other “peaceful means”, in accordance with Articles VI and VIII of the UN Charter, to help protect such endangered populations.

To underscore the importance of R2P, the UN Security Council, on August 21, 2014, passed Resolution 2171, which reaffirmed “the responsibility of each individual State to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”. The Resolution further called upon States “to recommit to prevent and fight against genocide, and other serious crimes under international law”, and reaffirmed its commitment to “paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document (A/60/L.1) on the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity”.

From the above, no individual country, no matter how strong militarily or economically, has right to intervene in the affairs of a country, even in the face of brutal genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity – save through the UN Security Council. That is the status of the extant international legal framework, for taming the monster called genocide.

The practical application of this, however, remains a mirage. Examples abound; but I shall limit myself to the USA. Prior to World War I, the USA was involved in dozens of direct military incursions into autonomous and semi-autonomous entities, including but not limited to South Dakota and Argentina (1890); Chile and Haiti (1891) and Korea (1894).

The USA, initially not involved in World War I, voluntarily entered the war in 1917 and became a major participant in World War II. It voluntarily joined the Korean War of 1950-1953, to assist South Korea; and it plunged fully into the Vietnam War of 1955-1975. In 1961, it invaded Cuba in what was termed the “Bay of Pigs Invasion”. This century-long superpower launched a similar military assault on Panama in 1989 – to remove the then strong man of that country, Manuel Noreiga. The involvement of the US in the Gulf War between 1990-1991, is another incident within living memory. It also launched a prolonged military campaign in Afghanistan from 2001, until 2021 when President Joe Biden hurriedly ordered US troops to withdraw, in what observers have labelled a major disastrous outing for the country.

In 2003, the USA invaded Iraq in what is known as the Iraqi war, which lasted for 8 years, culminating in the killing of Saddam Hussein. Also, from 2011 till date, the USA is directly involved, militarily, in Syria, where it operates under the cover of counter-terrorism operations. Similar involvement by the USA in Niger since 2017 was cut short in 2023, due to the military coup in that country.

It must also be remembered that the invasion of Libya by US forces, led not only to the ouster of Muammar Ghadafi, but also his killing on October 20, 2011, by local rival militias who captured him.

Some other international interventions by the US, even after R2P and UN Security Resolution 2171, include the use of US Special Forces in 2006, in collaboration with local military forces, to topple the Islamist government in Somalia, in an open battle with Al Shabab. In 2014, the same US Forces and the US Air Force jointly attacked Iraq, killing 8 civilians. In the period 2019-2020, the US deployed ground troops to Saudi Arabia, to assist that country’s armed forces in its war of attrition with Iran. From 2023 till recently when President Trump ordered a temporary halt, the US had been bombing Houthi Rebels in Yemen, and also raiding them with drones and missiles.

The US has also recently supported Israel militarily, in the wake of the rain of drones and missiles by Iran – by the USA deploying patriot missiles to obliterate, where possible, those fired by Iran. The mother of it all, was the recent bombing, using the highest and most deadly military technologies, the B-2 spirit stealth bombers and the Tomahawk missiles fired from a submarine, of nuclear sites in Iran by the USA Government under President Trump.

In all of these, the UN; and in particular, the UN Security Council, keeps mute or offers defeatist responses. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should kindly, take note of this.

Sino-USA Armed Conflicts: A Short Historical Analysis

Chinese (Sino)-American armed conflicts date back to 1894-1895, when the USA sent marines to the Sino-Japanese War. In the period 1898-1900, US marines were also deployed to fight in the “Boxer Rebellion” in China. Between 1911-1941, the USA continued to build up its military presence in China, by increasing the number of marines there, leading to countless flareups with the local Chinese military. More troops were deployed by the US to that country in the 1922-1927 period, during the “nationalist revolt.”

Following the victory at the polls of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the USA was forced to evacuate its citizens, with the use of the marines it had stationed in that country, and the others that had been brought in for that purpose. This was in1949.

There have been periods of conciliation and cooperation in Sino-American relations, starting with the establishment of diplomatic relations on January 1, 1979; but, these have always been punctuated by diplomatic rows over the role of Beijing in Hong Kong and Taiwan, respectively.

Upon President Donald Trump assuming office early 2025, his major policy of increasing tariffs on goods from other countries so much escalated strong rhetorics between the two countries, that in March, 2025, Beijing announced that it was ready to embark on “any war” with the USA. Pundits have been positing that, “any war” includes full-blown military war. Thankfully, however, these two most powerful economic nations have ‘settled’ this issue – with details being expected any moment from now.

It is important for President Tinubu to appreciate, however, the popular aphorism that ‘when two elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers’. Nigeria cannot, with respect, afford to be the battle ground, physical or intellectually cold, for any open conflagration between these two superpowers, China and USA.

The Trump Bombastic Shots and Antagonism from World Powers and Local Comprador ‘Powers’

Writing sternly but vividly on his personal social media handle, President Donald Trump stirred the hornet’s nest recently, when he warned the Government of Nigeria of the consequences of not halting the genocide against Christians in Nigeria. US military reprisals were promised, in the event of failure by the Nigerian government on this mandate. Shortly before then, President Trump had signed an Executive Order designating Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC).

Apart from prominent members of the US Congress and high-ranking officials of the Trump administration still echoing this threat and supporting their President, Canada has also voiced its support.

On the other hand, China, the European Union and the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) have all expressed support for Nigeria, stressing that this is an internal affair of Nigeria. Also, some vested local interests, who have kept mute for the decades that the terrorists have been embarking on killing sprees in Nigeria, have suddenly found their voice: the US should not dare intervene in Nigeria. What direction should Mr President then go?

Ignoring the US is too much of a Gamble

This brief interrogation of the situation on ground in Nigeria must catalogue, brevi manu, Beijing’s serial ‘warnings’ to America under similar circumstances, and the outcomes of ‘breaches’ thereof by Washington.

On January 16, 2024, Beijing warned USA against escalating strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. Neither President Joe Biden nor President Trump, ‘heeded’ such ‘warning’. Beijing buried its head, muttering incoherent words, after USA’s ‘intransigence’.

On March 14, 2025, Beijing and Moscow jointly supported Iran’s nuclear talks and warned the West against any military strike on Tehran. Also, on June 19, 2025, Beijing warned that any US arrack on Iran could spark global conflict. It also hinged its resistance to the US planned attack, on the same “sovereign nation” arguments it is currently advancing with respect to the ongoing debacle in Nigeria. The US refused to ‘respect’ that ‘warning’; and China did not reprise against the brief but elaborate aerial pummelling of nuclear sites in Iran by the USA. Rather, Beijing issued a statement that the said attack had damaged Washington’s global credibility. That was the best Beijing offered!

Away from Washington, China warned Israel of “serious consequences” if the latter attacked Iran. This came and went, without Beijing taking any counter-step against the Jewish State.

This analysis could go on and on; but, one fact stands out: Nigeria will not be protected by China if the USA decides to strike terrorist cells today! There is no need to mention the warning by the EU, which is still at wits’ end on how to face the Russia-Ukraine war – upon Trump pulling out USA resources. Besides, the economy of the EU countries is plummeting fast, no thanks to the tariffs’ policy of the Trump administration. In other words, the EU, apart from tough rhetorics, will be the first to take diplomatic cover, once precision bombs from American jets start dropping on terrorist hideouts in Nigeria. What about ECOWAS and loquacious local commentators? I won’t even comment on them.

Solution

Solution? President Tinubu should not ignore the Trump warnings! Mr President should not listen to some persons and other authorities goading him to square up to the USA, citing the “sovereignty” provisions in the UN Charter and other international legal instruments. He has no choice than to face the terrorists squarely and decisively, with visible results. Trump’s jets and special forces may be on their way already! Indeed, Trump’s body language and actions, as far as everyone knows, do not show that he backs out of issues like this one easily; neither does he chicken out at the mere ‘warning’ of Beijing or any other world power. Most USA Presidents have been like that. The examples cited above and many others, are enough testament to this! Act fast, Mr President!

Professor Sebastine T. Hon, SAN, Constitutional Lawyer and Author

The Big Men and the Moral Arena: How Virtue Became a Weapon in Global Politics

Rear Admiral K Bolanle Ati-John Rtd

Introduction

In an age when nations wield virtue as strategy and ego as statecraft, this piece examines how moral rivalry is reshaping power from Washington to Abuja, and why humility may yet prove  the strongest weapon of all.

When the United States recently designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, accusing it of failing to protect Christians from persecution, the decision was framed as a moral act. American officials invoked conscience, freedom of worship, and the universal duty to defend human rights. But, beneath the moral vocabulary lay another story, one about power, pride, and politics. Within hours, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a counter-statement, warning Washington against using religion as a “pretext for interference”. Nigerian authorities, caught between two superpowers, condemned the American judgement and thanked Beijing for its defence. In that moment, a debate about faith became a contest of influence, and a moral question turned into a geopolitical alignment. What should have been a sober reflection on justice and reform, transformed into a theatre of global posturing.

This episode may seem small in the rush of world events, yet, it captures a deeper transformation in international affairs. We are entering an age of moralised power, where virtue has become strategy, and values have become weapons. Governments now compete, not only for territory or trade, but for the right to define what is good, and in this new competition, the boundary between ethics and ambition has all but disappeared.

The Big Man

At the centre of this moral arena stands a familiar figure, the Big Man. Once thought to be an African political archetype, the Big Man has gone global. He is the populist President who sees himself as the embodiment of the nation, the strongman whose personal image substitutes for State institutions, the charismatic leader who treats diplomacy as performance. He may wear a business suit or a party uniform, but his creed is the same: the belief that national dignity and personal prestige are one and the same. In this world, power flows not through institutions, but through personality; loyalty replaces law, and image outshines substance.

Across capitals, from Washington to Beijing to Abuja, this psychology now shapes international behaviour. The United States under Donald Trump redefined diplomacy as personal theatre, where moral declarations served domestic audiences, as much as global justice. China under Xi Jinping has institutionalised its own form of centralised charisma, presenting the leader as philosopher-king and guardian of harmony against Western hypocrisy. Nigeria, under successive administrations, continues the long tradition of personalised rule, where alliances and rhetoric shift according to the leader’s political needs. Each of these actors speaks the language of virtue, yet, each does so in the grammar of self-interest.

The moral vocabulary itself has become strategic currency. Joseph Nye, who once described power as the ability to attract rather than coerce, argued that influence rests on persuasion, the quiet authority of example. For decades, this was America’s secret strength. But, that currency has depreciated. The United States still speaks the language of liberty, yet, its tone often carries the weariness of moral fatigue. China, sensing opportunity, has minted an alternative moral language, development without humiliation, loans without lectures, partnership without interference. It appeals to nations tired of being judged by Western standards. Both powers now compete to be admired, not just obeyed. The contest is not about who holds more weapons, but whose story of virtue the world believes.

For countries like Nigeria, this rivalry offers both leverage and peril. Nigeria’s leaders have learned to navigate between the moral empires with transactional dexterity: rebuffing Washington’s criticism by embracing Beijing’s support, and turning back to the West when Chinese pressure becomes overbearing. It is a sophisticated dance of survival. But, it is also a dependency. When morality becomes a bargaining chip, it ceases to be a compass. Over time, moral diplomacy turns States into actors in someone else’s script.

The dynamic resembles a prestige game in which each player strives to appear firm, righteous, and in control, but none can afford to yield. The United States cannot risk silence without alienating its domestic base; China cannot appear submissive before the Global South it courts; and Nigeria cannot afford to look weak before a population conditioned to equate sovereignty with pride. Thus, each side doubles down, escalating rhetoric to protect image. The result is not open conflict, but performative confrontation, a loud but fragile equilibrium where the appearance of strength replaces the substance of security.

Within this contest, Nigeria’s internal wounds become global symbols. The violence in its Middle Belt and the North-West, the attacks on worshippers, and the impunity of armed groups are grim realities. Yet, because the State has failed to deliver impartial justice, these tragedies have been absorbed into foreign narratives. Western policymakers cite them as proof of moral decline; China invokes them to demonstrate Western hypocrisy. In this way, the suffering of ordinary Nigerians becomes ammunition in the moral wars of great powers. Victims are invoked, but seldom heard. If Nigeria were to strengthen its judicial institutions and guarantee equal protection for all citizens, the moral leverage of others would vanish. No one can weaponise justice already served.

The danger, however, is that moral confrontation rarely stays symbolic. Once nations define their identity through righteousness, compromise becomes weakness. The next phase is often the militarisation of morality, the deployment of power to prove virtue. The Gulf of Guinea already witnesses a growing overlap of American and Chinese naval activities, each justified as peacekeeping or anti-piracy operations. Yet, every exercise is also a statement of presence. Nigeria, seeking cooperation from both, becomes the stage on which rival forces perform discipline and restraint. In such a charged atmosphere, an accident, a misread signal, an overflight, an intercepted vessel, could become a flashpoint. When leaders are Big Men, even small incidents threaten their sense of infallibility. The risk of escalation lies not in ambition, but in emotion.

Africa thus, stands at a dangerous crossroads. The continent’s sovereignty is being courted by competing moral orders, and its nations risk becoming theatres of ideological rivalry disguised as partnership. The new scramble for Africa is not about land, but about legitimacy, about who can claim to represent the moral future of the world. For Africa to survive this moral siege, it must cultivate its own institutional backbone. Nigeria, the continent’s largest democracy, carries special responsibility. Its government must show that dignity and accountability can coexist, that defending sovereignty requires first defending citizens. Sovereignty without justice, is insecurity by another name.

In this environment, restraint becomes the rarest and most revolutionary form of leadership. The ability to de-escalate without surrendering dignity is now the highest art of Statecraft. Yet, restraint requires institutional confidence, a bureaucracy strong enough to absorb pressure, and a leader wise enough to separate personal pride from national interest. Unfortunately, the current world order rewards the opposite: impulsive rhetoric, moral grandstanding, and the politics of outrage. The global information space feeds on conflict; social media converts indignation into political capital. As a result, the leaders most able to inflame their followers are often the least capable of calming them.

What the international community needs is not another sermon on virtue, but a moral compact for power, an understanding that principles should guide policy without becoming its weapon. Moral accountability, must begin at home. Western nations cannot preach human rights, while profiting from injustice abroad. China cannot defend sovereignty abroad, while repressing dissent at home. Nigeria cannot demand respect abroad, while tolerating impunity within. The real test of a State’s virtue lies not in how loudly it condemns others, but in how honestly it reforms itself.

Such a compact would reframe global morality as partnership, rather than punishment. It would acknowledge that sovereignty carries responsibility, that accountability strengthens independence, and that disagreement need not imply disrespect. The world will always argue, but it can learn to argue within bounds, to replace the cacophony of ego with the harmony of principle.

In military terms, the most effective manoeuvre is often the one not taken. The same truth applies to diplomacy. Restraint is not capitulation; it is the ultimate proof of confidence. Nigeria must respond to criticism with evidence, not indignation. The United States must temper its moral zeal with humility, remembering that credibility is maintained through example, not coercion. China must prove that its respect for sovereignty, does not mask new dependencies. Greatness in this century will not belong to those who shout the loudest about morality, but to those who practice it most consistently and most quietly.

The real contest of our time is not between East and West, nor between faith and secularism. It is between ego and empathy. If humanity fails to distinguish the two, we will repeat the tragedies of the past, this time with more technology and less forgiveness. Every conflict begins when leaders stop seeing opponents as human, and start seeing them as obstacles to pride. Every peace begins when someone chooses composure over vanity. The strength of a nation lies not in its capacity to confront, but in its ability to prevent confrontation. The most powerful weapon of this century may therefore, be humility itself.

The age of Big Men will one day pass, as all ages of ego do. What will remain are the institutions they leave behind. If today’s leaders, from Abuja to Beijing to Washington, can rise above performance and invest in process, they will lay the foundations for a world in which morality ceases to be a cudgel and becomes a mirror, reflecting our shared humanity, instead of our competing pride. Until then, we remain in the moral arena, where nations compete not only for power, but for the right to define what is good. The task before us is not to abolish that arena, but to elevate it, to ensure that in defending our dignity, we do not destroy our decency.

Rear Admiral K. Bolanle Ati-John Rtd, Lagos

As the Din of Trump’s Possible Invasion Resonates: International Law Perspective

Gozie Francis Moneke

Warnings

As the brouhaha of a possible invasion by the United States’ military continues to reverberate across the nation, being currently the news with utmost currency in Nigeria, the need to dispassionately dissect and interrogate the situation through the lens of international law has become pressingly germane. Few days ago, the US President, Donald Trump, in his trademark unequivocal style, took a sharp swipe at Nigeria in condemnation of what he described as horrible mass slaughter of Christians in the country by radical Islamic militants. President Trump therefore, vowed that, in the event that the Nigerian government failed to act fast, the United States would stop every aid to Nigeria, and may well move into the country guns-a-blazing, to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorist groups that are responsible for the horrible atrocities against the cherished Christian population in Nigeria. Trump warned that if the United States attacked, it would be fast, vicious and swift.

These are surely very ominous warnings, coming from the US President. Any person that has paid attention to the trajectory of President Trump’s leadership predilections, as it were, would know better than to take his threats and promises with a pinch of salt. One may ignore President Trump’s threats at one’s own peril.

On that note, there has been very palpable, albeit subtle, trepidation and foreboding in the Nigerian corridors of power, in the wake of this baleful warning from the White House. A few tacit responses from some government officials had hinted on the sacrosanctity of State sovereignty as a reassuring ground why any invasion of Nigeria by the US military would remain farfetched, urging instead a diplomatic engagement between the two countries to resolve the vexed issue. On the other hand, however, the social media is awash with unmistakable euphoria of approbation amongst many Nigerians, who seem already in an expectant mood for such US military intervention at the matching orders of President Trump. It has therefore, become imperative to carefully, albeit briefly, interrogate the

propriety or otherwise of such invasion by the United States into Nigeria with a view to volunteering a modicum of humble counsel to the two governments involved in the face-off.

Principle of State Sovereignty

Now, it is trite that the comity of nations is governed in their relations by the rules of international law. The overarching and fundamental basis of international relations is encapsulated under the principle or concept of State sovereignty. This is the notion of a State’s supreme authority over its territorial boundaries and its people, encompassing the exclusive right to self-government without external influence or interference. Sovereignty is comprised of internal and external dimensions, the former denoting a country’s ultimate competence within its borders, the latter referring to the equality of status among nations and their respective independence in relation to other nations on the international stage. Internal sovereignty therefore, entails that only the government of a particular country holds the sole right to use or exert public force, either through the law enforcement agencies or the military within its territory, for the protection of its people and borders. In the light of the foregoing, it would seem that the threat by the United States to invade Nigeria to stop the systematic and unchecked killings of Christians, would be a gross violation of the absolute right of the Nigerian government over the internal affairs of the country. It turns out however, that the matter is not as straight-jacketed as that.

The principle of State sovereignty is not absolute and comes with duties such as fulfilling international obligations, and respecting the rights and sovereignty of other nations. The law, it is said, is in the exceptions!

Accordingly, the principle of State sovereignty is not without its own exceptions and limitations. The international law regime has identified circumstances, where the principle of State sovereignty may not operate to estop interference by the international community under the aegis of the United Nations, or informally through a world superpower acting as a global policeman.

States are bound to respect the jus cogens norms of international law, which are also known as peremptory norms and include prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture and aggression. Thus, International human rights law creates a delicate tension with the principle of non-intervention, by holding States accountable for the treatment of their own citizens, potentially limiting a State’s internal sovereignty. As an offshoot of the foregoing, States are saddled with the responsibility to protect their citizens. If a State fails in this critical responsibility of protecting its citizens from widespread violence or mass atrocities, the international community may intervene to protect such helpless citizens, hence, torpedoing the principle of non-interference. This is because the jus cogens norms or peremptory norms of international law, raises erga omnes obligation, which is obligation owed by States towards the community of States as a whole, and exists because of the universal and undeniable interest in the perpetuation of critical rights and prevention of their breach. Erga Omnes obligations attach when there is a serious breach of a peremptory norm of international law such as piracy, genocide or war of aggression. Any State has the right to invoke State responsibility, in order to hold accountable another State that is in violation of a peremptory norm of international law.

The foregoing concise summation of the applicable principles of international law, makes the scenario of the US-Nigeria face-off pretty much straight forward. The undeniable mass killing of Christians and burning of churches in Nigeria by the radical Islamic militant or terrorist groups, is without doubt an act of genocide. The concept of genocide can be defined in simple terms, as the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, national, ethnic or religious group in whole or in part. The full definition is captured under Article II of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It is therefore, beyond argument that the relentless and unmitigated killing of Christians in various parts of Nigeria by the radical Islamic militants or terrorists over several years is nothing short of genocide. It is also not in doubt that thousands of Muslims have also been killed by the mindless terrorists, apparently for belonging to a more salubrious sect of the Islamic faith. This, however, does not in any way detract from the credence of a genocide against the Christian population in Nigeria.

Over the years, the Nigerian government has failed in its duty to protect innocent citizens, especially the Christians, from the deadly onslaught of the radical Islamic terrorists. There has not been any palpable and decisive effort, at confronting the terrorists head-on and defeating them decisively. They have been allowed to colonise some known forests and villages in the country, yet the entire military and Police forces of the country have surprisingly become so emasculated as not to be able to over-power, dispel or disband these bands of terrorists. They carry out their orgies of killings and frenzies of destruction in villages, often unchallenged or ineffectively challenged. It is often reported that the terrorists wield superior arms than the military and Police, which raises the questions: how do they get those arms, who are their financiers or sponsors, why can’t the Nigerian government equip the military and Police personnel with superior arms to fight the terrorists? It is obvious that the government of Nigeria lacks the commitment, will and honesty to decisively fight and conquer the terrorists. Many military and Police personnel have lost their lives in various ambushes by the terrorists, because of constant sabotage of operational itinerary, coupled with inferior weapons of warfare. The terrorists kidnap citizens and seamlessly collect ransoms, they invade villages leaving trails of blood, carnage and destruction, and retreat ‘peacefully’ into their jungles or villages where they reign supreme unperturbed and undisturbed. Clearly, this dire scenario is evident of the fact that the Nigerian government has partially lost its internal sovereignty to the Islamic terrorist groups, and has grossly failed in its duty to protect its own citizens, thus, giving room for the perpetration of the crime of genocide not only against Christians, but also against innocent Muslims of the salubrious sect. It stands to reason therefore, that the government of Nigeria has compromised the sovereignty of the nation, and exposed it to legitimate invasion by the United States, invoking the principle of State responsibility to hold Nigeria accountable for the crime of genocide and failure to protect innocent and helpless Nigerians. Thus, acting as a global policeman, the United States can indeed, intervene, to protect the endangered Christians and other citizens who are being targeted and systematically killed by the terrorists. The United Nations has over the years, by tacit acquiescence, seemingly affixed an imprimatur of approbation to the largely salutary role of the world superpowers, especially the United States, in bringing respite to citizens in countries where the governments had failed to protect their own people or were complicit or responsible for widespread atrocities against citizens. It follows from the foregoing that except the Nigerian government decides to make a clean breast of the hitherto feeble confrontation of the terrorists and quickly rises to the occasion with determination, courage, honesty and decisiveness, any invasion by the United States military would be legitimate, justified and indeed, welcome by millions of endangered Nigerian citizens. Nigerian government must quit the politics of subterfuge and work for the best interest, good and welfare of Nigerians, to make this country a safe and comfortable place for everybody to survive and thrive.

On the other hand, the United States government is urged to exercise utmost care in any potential operation in Nigeria, to ensure that innocent citizens do not suffer or come in the cross-fire. The United States, in executing any such intervention in Nigeria, does so in the interest of innocent citizens, hence, it goes without saying that the operation must be planned with great attention to ensure that as much as is humanly possible, no single casualty of innocent Nigerian is recorded. Those in the captivity of the terrorists should be rescued, in the meticulous operational precision that United States military is reputed. Most importantly, any possible intervention by the United States must serve its purpose in full, by ensuring that the terrorists are completely exterminated and not merely to disperse them to various parts of the country where they would regroup and continue their dastardly activities at the end of the US invasion, perhaps, with more deadly resolve. This would ensure that Nigeria is not left in volatile situation akin to the post-Gadaffi era in Libya sequel to US invasion of that country.

In the final analysis, Nigeria must emerge from the embers of lawlessness, where leaders ensconced in the comfort of their redoubtable fortresses, make believe that all is well or even mindlessly ignore the brutal human suffering that is the plight of ordinary citizens. The protection of the people is the paramount obligation of any responsible government, and the welfare of the people is the paramount law (salus populi est suprema lex). The welfare and safety of the Nigerian people often seem the least concern of leaders in government, which is why there is no visible or tenable commitment to progressively improve the lives of Nigerians. Rather, government officials and their political cohorts are obsessed in their avaricious quest for plundering and squander-mania of the national resources, with the ordinary citizens left crestfallen, helpless, unprotected and egregiously dispossessed of every iota of the commonwealth. Being a citizen of Nigeria must count for something, and the life of every Nigerian must matter and must not be compromised.

Gozie Francis Moneke, LLM (London) MCArb; Executive Director, Human Rights and Empowerment Project Ltd/Gte (HREP); Principal Partner, Gozie Moneke & Associates

The Hypocrisy of a Nation that Cannot Face Its Shame

Sa’adiyyah Adebisi Hassan

The Truth Hurts

You are angry with Donald Trump not because he lied, but because he told the truth. You are angry that he called your country what it has become a disgrace, a nation that cannot protect its own citizens, a government that rewards killers, and a people who cheer for their oppressors while booing those who dare to speak the truth.

 Yet, the same people who foam at the mouth when Trump says “protect your citizens”, are the ones applauding China, a country that has turned parts of Nigeria into mining outposts, draining the soil, polluting the rivers, and looting gold from Zamfara, while corpses pile up in the same land.

This is not patriotism.

This is pathological self-deception.

 Truth hurts only when you’re living in denial

 When Trump called Nigeria “a disgrace”, he didn’t manufacture the evidence. It’s there visible, daily, and measurable.

Terrorists roam free, while soldiers and police die unpaid. Citizens kidnapped in hundreds, and their families pay ransom through banks that the government refuses to track.

Students murdered for “blasphemy”, and the killers walk free. Billions looted in palliative funds, while millions starve.

If that’s not disgrace, what word fits better?“Glory”? “Progress”? “Greatness”?

 It takes a special kind of blindness to defend failure, simply because the critic isn’t wearing your flag. You cheer the thief, because he smiles in Mandarin. While you’re busy cursing Trump, Chinese contractors and miners are quietly carting away Nigeria’s natural wealth, under “bilateral agreements” that are nothing but economic servitude.

 In Zamfara, Niger, Nasarawa, and Kaduna, Chinese nationals have been repeatedly caught in illegal gold and lithium mining operations, some arrested with security escort. Rivers are poisoned, lands destroyed, and communities displaced, but the government looks away because the looters come with soft loans and polite smiles.

In Niger State, over 500 illegal mining sites were exposed, most operated by foreign interests with local collaborators. In Nasarawa, villagers have protested against Chinese miners who polluted their only water source. Yet, no serious prosecution followed. The same people defending these deals shout “racism” when Trump speaks, as though patriotic indignation is treason.

China’s interests are not charity. They are business, ruthless, calculated, and in their favour. But, you mistake exploitation for friendship, because it comes in the language of “infrastructure development”.

 The West says ‘fix your country’, the East says ‘sign here’. Western leaders criticise Nigeria, because they see a country that refuses to help itself. They tie aid to accountability. They demand reform. They insist on human rights.

But, China doesn’t care. China doesn’t ask questions about governance, corruption, or security. China just brings loans, takes resources, and leaves you with debt and pollution. And, you clap like slaves applauding the chain that glitters.

When Trump says, “Protect your people”, you call him racist.

 When China says, “Give us your gold and pay interest”, you call it partnership.

That’s not national pride. That’s mental colonisation, in Chinese wrapping paper.

Patriotism is not defending failure, it’s demanding better. A true patriot, doesn’t attack those who point out his nation’s wounds. He demands those in power heal them. If Donald J. Trump’s comment angers you more than the massacres in Benue, Plateau and Zamfara, your patriotism is fake. If you hate him more than you hate the officials stealing your future, you are part of the rot.

You cannot scream “sovereignty” when foreign companies control your mines, your ports, your loans, and your power grids. You cannot boast of independence, when foreign drones map your territory for “investment opportunities”.

Disgrace

And, you cannot claim dignity when you defend a government that arrests protesters, but negotiates with terrorists.

 The real disgrace is not Trump’s statement, it’s our reaction. The disgrace is a country that spends billions rehabilitating killers, but abandons the victims. The disgrace is the silence of religious and political leaders, who see evil and call it politics. The disgrace is citizens who would rather fight the truth-teller, than confront the truth.

Trump said what every honest Nigerian knows, but fears to say aloud: The nation has become a parody of governance, rich in excuses, poor in courage.

 If you can’t handle that truth, it’s because you’ve mistaken complacency for loyalty, and silence for strength.

Choose your shame wisely.

 You are angry with Trump for saying your house is on fire. But, you are bowing to China while they quietly steal your roof, your door, and the very ground under your feet. You hate the man who warned you, and you celebrate the one who robs you.

 If that’s not disgrace, what is?

Until Nigerians learn to confront truth with humility instead of rage, they will continue to trade dignity for deception, cheering the thieves, silencing the prophets, and calling betrayal “diplomacy”.

 The Real Enemy

The real enemy isn’t Trump. The real enemy is the cowardice, that cannot bear to look in the mirror.

Sa’adiyyah Adebisi Hassan

President Trump’s Statement on Nigeria, Undermines True Victims of Terrorism

Badamasi Suleiman Gandu

 President Donald J. Trump, has called for military action against Nigeria. He was quoted as saying:

• “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter.”

• “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians … the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria”, and “we will … go in ‘guns-a-blazing’, to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.”

 Mr President, with due respect, you should rather say: “Nigerians are being killed”.

 While every killing is condemnable and every innocent life is sacred, to say “thousands of Christians are being killed” is misleading. It is an injustice to Muslims, and implies that Muslim lives are of lesser value. No one should rejoice at any loss of life. But, as Nigerians, we must confront the truth: the majority of victims of terrorism and banditry in the worst-affected States are Muslims. To ignore this reality, is to silence thousands of families who have endured unspeakable grief, often without global recognition.

A few examples of prominent traditional rulers who have been cut down by extremist and criminal violence:

1. Alhaji Isa Muhammad Bawa, Emir of Gobir (Sokoto State), abducted and killed in August 2024.

2. Alhaji Atiku Maidabino, District Head of Yantumaki (Katsina State), assassinated in June 2020.

3. Alhaji Umaru Bawan Allah, District Head of Gada (Zamfara State), murdered in December 2021.

4. Alhaji Bashar Saidu Namaska, son of the Emir of Kontagora (Niger State), killed in May 2021.

 Mosques Have Become Death Sentences

For over a decade, extremists and bandits have targeted Muslims during times of prayer and worship. Examples include:

1. Borno State (2013): 44 Muslims massacred at dawn prayers in Konduga Central Mosque.

2. Yobe State (2014): 15 Shia Muslims killed during a Potiskum Ashura procession.

3. Damaturu (2015): 50 people killed on Eid morning.

4. Maiduguri (2015): 42 killed in a mosque bombing during evening prayers.

5. Molai-Umarari (2016): 24 worshippers killed at Fajr prayers.

6. University of Maiduguri (2017): 4 killed, including a respected professor, in a mosque attack.

7. Mubi (2017 & 2018): Two major mosque bombings killed nearly 80 people combined.

8. Nganzai (2019): 65 villagers murdered while returning from a funeral.

9. Katsina (2021): 10 killed during Maghrib prayers in Yasore village.

10. Katsina (2023): 20 killed at a Maulud celebration.

11. Katsina (19 August 2025): 50 people killed during dawn prayers in Mantau, Malumfashi LGA; 60 abducted.

12. Kano (2014): Around 120 killed in the Central Mosque bombing.

13. Kano (2015): 21 killed in an Arba’een Shia procession.

14. Zamfara (2025): 5 killed in mosque in Yandoto Village during Fajr prayer.

These are a few documented cases; many incidents go unreported, or are not widely mentioned.

 The Arithmetic of Compassion

If President Trump or any global leader truly wishes to understand the scale of Nigeria’s suffering, a simple demographic fact must be considered: in the Northern States most affected by terrorism and banditry; Borno, Yobe, Katsina, Sokoto, Zamfara, Niger and Adamawa, Muslims form the overwhelming majority of the population. Statistically, therefore, Muslims have borne the heavier share of this violence, both in absolute numbers, and as a proportion of their communities.

 Are Muslim Lives Less Valuable than Christian Ones?

If the answer is “no”, if Muslim lives are not less valuable than Christian one’s, international actors must stop painting Nigeria’s tragedy as a religious war. It is not. It is a human catastrophe driven by terrorism, poverty and State fragility, but not by faith.

 If President Trump truly means his statement that “we will … go in ‘guns-a-blazing’, to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities”, we would welcome an end to violence. But, we must be clear: what Nigeria needs is peace and the protection of all civilians, not indiscriminate bloodshed.

Badamasi Suleiman Gandu, Legal Practitioner

President Trump’s Threat and International Law Against Acts of Religious Genocide

Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje

Introduction

The recent threat by President Donald Trump of the United States, over sending troops to take on those who are killing Christians in particular, has raised a lot of dust within and without the comity of Nations. This discourse examines the implications, and seeks to also note that every nation under international law has a responsibility to protect every religion and their followers from persecution or genocide as it were

 President Trump’s Threat and Our Sovereignty

Indeed, under international law, every nation’s sovereignty is sacrosanct ,and as such, must accordingly be duly respected

The United Nations Charter of 1945, affirms this axiomatic principle and global idiosyncratic norm, without prejudice however, to a state of war between nations.

And, our Constitution declares lucidly that sovereignty belongs to the people in Section 14(2)(a). To that extent, if President Trump decides to invade Nigeria as a nation, he will certainly violate our sovereignty under international law and treaties relating thereto.

Terrorism and Genocide: International Crimes

The above crimes are declared as violations against the whole world, and as such, every nation including the United States, as a world power, has a duty to put a stop to same anywhere, anytime, but not anyhow.

The threat by President Trump however, is to attack the attackers as it were, of the Christian faithfuls who he says are facing genocide at the moment. He posits that our nation has not been forthcoming in her responsibility to protect the Christians, from these ceaseless attacks by the fast marauding terrorists. In other words, there is a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

However, the Nigerian President, Bola Tinubu, has refuted these allegations, and stated on the contrary, that he has so far taken pragmatic steps to reverse the trend, and that our Constitution and laws protect religious freedoms under Section 10 thereof. That section in our Constitution proclaims Nigeria as a secular State, and will not patronise, nor persecute any religion in Nigeria.

 Duty on Nations to Protect All Religions and their Followers Under International Law

Again, the UN Charter and Conventions, have offered religious protection for all in this troubled world, and have equally through a plethora of declarations and resolutions, affirmed this principle. Consequently, President Trump is also relying on these Charters, declarations and resolutions including domestic laws of the United State,  against genocide of any kind.

President Trump Says he’s Striking Terrorists’ Enclaves, and Not Nigeria as a Nation

Interestingly, President Trump has declared that he will strike only the terrorists, and not ordinary Nigerians, unless the terrorists are also Nigerians. To this extent therefore, President Trump is under a duty in international law to protect any religion facing genocide in Nigeria or anywhere, including Christians as in this instance.

President Trump proclaimed the same CPC on Nigeria in 2020, when Nigeria had budgeted N300m every one hour to fight terrorism. Indeed, at that time the Fulani herders were regrettably in charge of Nigeria, notwithstanding the astronomical funds spent to fight the fight or “fright”, as it turned out.

Implications for Nigeria

Some of the following may happen to wit:

1. Striking the terrorists without any notice to Nigeria, as that is one of the terms of the executive order.

2. Sanctions in all economic spheres.

3. Cutting down or totally blocking any further aid to Nigeria.

4. Earning Nigeria a pariah status in the comity of nations.

5. Advertising instability in Nigeria.

6. Creating further divisions amongst all religions in Nigeria.

7.Targeting Nigerian citizens within and abroad, thus, drastically reducing our relevance and employment status.

8. Unwittingly conscripting powerful nations to blacklist Nigeria and her already battered green passport.

9. Even locally, Africa is shutting down our boundaries like Chad has now done.

10.Retard development and growth.

Dr Akpo Mudiaga Odje

Trump vs Nigeria: International Law to the Rescue?

Marx Ikongbeh

President Trump seems to be a fan of combat sports. We have seen him in WWE Wrestling and more recently, attending UFC fights. So, is his threat to Nigeria the dramatic verbal jousting that precedes a fight? The Nigerian Government has pushed against the threats, stating that it is a violation of international law. Indeed, the feebler party to most international conflicts have found themselves mouthing this same rhetoric, while being pummelled to death. It seems it never works. Why is this? The intention is to examine the position of international law, with respect to the use of force by one State against another State. This would be done on a street level basis, because international law is a complex topic.

Historically, International Law is a hotchpotch of standards of courtesy that have evolved over time, to shape how the banding of humans into a collective grouping can be defined in its relationship to another grouping. International law or properly called public international law, is what gave birth to countries or nations as we know it today. In simple terms, International Law is why Nigeria is recognised as a defined geographical location on earth, with a distinct population of people and a government of its choosing to oversee its running. This can be taken for granted, but it was not always so. You can appreciate this when you read historical texts such as the Bible, and you see that the King of a nation could simply invade another nation, defeat them, relocate their entire population, and erase that nation and its civilisation off the face of the earth. International law aims, emphasis on “aims” to curb such an occurrence. Underlying International Law are many principles, the simple illustration above highlights some of them including; sovereignty, equality of States, non-intervention, prohibition of the use of force, amongst others. Sovereignty in simple parlance, is the ultimate right of control that a State has over its territory, its people and its affairs without external interference. Based on this, international law stipulates that all States, irrespective of any factor, are equals. And, therefore, no State is allowed to interfere or meddle in the internal affairs of another State without consent, and this by implication rules out the use of force by one State against another. Trump’s threat therefore, crosses many red lines. But, at street level, international law may seem aspirational, because of a lack of precise enforcement mechanism. All States, like the Orwellian cliché, are equal, but some States are more equal than others. This is, however, not to say that International Law is completely impotent. The internet we enjoy, maritime trade, aviation and many other everyday applications are a testament of the potency of international law. Without its rules and protocols, we would live in caves. However, international law seems to fail the most, when it confronts international politics. Contrary to its stipulations, might remains right, especially where that might is fortified by nuclear arms!

To the point of this contribution to the on-going confrontation between Trump and Nigeria, recourse to International law alone cannot save the Nigerian Government if Trump decides to send Hegseth in guns-a-blazing. The precedents show that like the proverbial elephant, the webs of international law will not be able to hold Trump where it catches smaller non-nuclear States likes flies.The Nigerian Government must face up to its failings, the insult from Trump is well earned. The Idoma people of Benue State have a saying that, if you do not go to the home of pounded yam, you would not earn a soup stain on your shirt. The Nigerian Government’s score card on the genocidal killings, is abysmal. The claim that the Government is doing its best, is not borne out by the facts we see.

Posers

A few posers: The directives of successive Presidents to security chiefs to relocate to crises centres, is flouted routinely without consequences. The security chiefs remain in the calm comfort of Maitama and Asokoro, picking the little specs of indiscipline in the eyes of rank and file arraigned before Court Marital, while the massive log of disobedience of a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief hangs in their eyes. Throughout this reign of terror, we have not heard a President fire the security chiefs and explicitly state that this was because they failed to meet their KPI’s on insecurity. Rather, each change of guard has been to secure other strategic objectives, mostly connected to the Commander-in-Chiefs own assurance of safety and loyalty. We therefore, cannot dispute the insinuation that the Nigerian philosophy of security is to secure the Nigerian elite, and not to secure the Nigerian nation and her people. When  malnourished but otherwise gallant Nigerian troops complain of the abysmal conditions, including lack of kinetics and other equipment at the war theatre, they are hauled off to a court martial for insubordination and conducts contrary to military discipline. Yet, retiring security chiefs, who from the evidence did not suffer any diminution in their perks of office and benefits upon retirement, would later come on air to re-echo the same sentiment of underfunding and lack of equipment. Where then goes all the billions appropriated for security? The commonly held conception is that many actors, including the security agents and now foreign elements like Chinese illegal miners, are benefiting from and fuelling the carnage. We have not seen any detailed reports that the Government probed these claims to confirm their veracity, so they continue to grow in credibility.

They are insinuations of internal sabotage, in Nigeria’s security and intelligence architecture. The massacre in Yelewata, Benue State for instance, was said to be preceded by a 4-day tip-off by the Nigerian SSS, yet, nothing was done to nip it in the bud, and no senior security or intelligence officer took a fall for that. How could the Government expect to be taken serious when it says it is doing its best? On this matter, it is clear that help will not come from abroad, rather insult and condemnation have come and targeted strikes might follow. Not even the United Kingdom, our Commonwealth buddy has made attempts to spring to Nigeria’s defence. But, even if they did, just like the support from Russia and China, we ought to be wary of that support, as it is likely borne of a renewed scramble for Africa.

While frustration with the Nigerian Government might tempt Nigerians to wish that Trump would make good on his threat, conventional wisdom whispers caution. As Gazans, Ukrainians and others might tell, war and any form of violence is best read on the news and not seen on your streets. While violence is already with us, a US action could further escalate the situation, and plunge the nation into general instability. The example of Afghanistan, Libya, and even Iraq, do not indicate that we should welcome Trump and Hegseth, no matter how peeved we are with our government. The message to the Nigerian Government is simple, chanting International Law violation will not stop Trump. Diplomacy might have some good effect, but the solution is simply to brace up to the task, not for Trump’s sake, but for the sake of our own people. The President must give clear KPIs to the security chiefs, with consequences for non-performance. Financial probity must be instilled in security funding, to track security funds from appropriation at the National Assembly to the discharge of every single bullet at the battle front. Security funds should not be cloaked under the guise of National Security, and sequestered from proper scrutiny. Intelligence and counterintelligence must be stepped up, and saboteurs must be adequately punished. The impact of foreign actors such as illegal miners, must be properly checked and foreign sympathisers such as China should be called to prove their good faith by lending a helping hand in this area.

The real shame and insult in all of this, is that it took a visitor to say it before our government seemed to get serious about this mayhem.

Marx Ikongbeh, Legal Practitioner, Abuja