By Henry Ojelu
Nigerians were jolted last week after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to invade the country over what he called a “Christian genocide.” Trump’s fiery remarks, made during a rally in Texas, accused President Bola Tinubu’s administration of failing to protect Nigeria’s Christian population from systematic killings in the North and Middle Belt.
The comment, which many viewed as reckless and inflammatory, sparked diplomatic shockwaves and triggered sharp reactions across Nigeria’s political and legal circles. From the Senate to the Bar, the consensus is clear — Trump’s threat is a dangerous violation of international law and a direct affront to Nigeria’s sovereignty. Yet, beneath the outrage lies a sobering truth: Nigeria’s deepening insecurity and religious violence have once again placed its human rights record under the world’s microscope.
President Tinubu’s response was swift but measured. “Nigeria will not be threatened into submission by any foreign power,” the Presidency said in a statement. “Our nation’s sovereignty is non-negotiable. While we recognise the importance of international partnerships against terrorism, Nigeria will never tolerate any attempt to undermine its independence or territorial integrity.”
Still, President Tinubu’s assurance did little to calm the tension. Legal experts have weighed in, dissecting the implications of Trump’s statement from both diplomatic and constitutional angles. Their views paint a portrait of a country trapped between defending its sovereignty and confronting its failure to protect its citizens.
Security has collapsed, but no to invasion — Edun, SAN
Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olakunle Edun, described Trump’s statement as “unacceptable,” but admitted Nigeria’s worsening insecurity had left the door open to such foreign provocations.
“I want to believe that most Nigerians are in agreement that the security situation in Nigeria has gotten worse to the extent that human lives seem to have no value except that of the politicians who have armed escorts paid by taxpayers. While ordinary Nigerians are being killed in their hundreds daily, government officials live in luxury,” Edun said.
He noted that both Christians and Muslims have suffered mass killings, yet attacks in Plateau and Benue states — mostly targeting Christian communities — could easily be interpreted as genocide.
“Deborah, a Christian, was killed in Sokoto. Her killer was arrested but was set free. What do you say about that? It is not enough to say there is no genocide with our mouths; our government’s actions must show that every life matters,” he said. Quoting Section 10 of the Constitution, which declares Nigeria a secular state, Edun accused successive administrations of hypocrisy.
“We still see governments funding religious pilgrimages. A nation steeped in religion but without holiness,” he lamented.
Yet, Edun drew a red line against any foreign military interference. “What I will not support is for a foreign country to invade Nigeria, all in the name of dealing with our security issues. That is a big no. Nigeria is a sovereign state, and no country can dictate how it should be governed,” he insisted.
He warned that Nigeria’s internal instability could quickly spill beyond its borders, with grave consequences for Africa.
“Nigeria is the largest black nation on earth and its population can overwhelm the entire West African sub-region. The black world looks up to Nigeria for leadership, but sadly, we seem cursed with some of the characters that are ruling us,” he said.
Edun urged the Federal Government to take Trump’s outburst as a wake-up call saying: “The government should take the warning serious and go after the known sponsors of terrorism. Information is that they are not hidden. Can we say ‘never again’ to massacres in Plateau and Benue? Can we stop the senseless killings in the North-West where some local governments are now under bandits’ control?”
Africa is next prize —Oshoma
Human rights lawyer, Liborous Oshoma approached Trump’s statement from a wider geopolitical lens, warning that behind Washington’s “Christian genocide” rhetoric lay a familiar pattern of resource-driven interventionism.
“I have listened to the back and forth on Trump’s declaration to go into Nigeria ‘guns blazing. Whichever side of the divide you are on, it’s obvious our government has not been decisive or sincere about insecurity. Some persons in government have even been named as beneficiaries of these crises,” he said. However, Oshoma emphasized that the United Nations Charter of 1945 prohibits any state from invading another under any pretext. “Are we witnessing a comeback of the pre-1945 era?” he asked rhetorically. “Look at Gaza — the UN declared it genocide. Has anything changed? Has Israel faced any real consequences? Even the ICC’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu is ignored. The UN has lost its teeth.”
He argued that Trump’s threat must be seen within the context of America’s struggle to maintain global dominance amid China’s rising influence.
“China is winning the economic war against the U.S. With BRICS expanding, the dollar’s reign as the global reserve currency is threatened. Once it collapses, the U.S. economy will implode. The only thing keeping America afloat is control over global resources — and Africa is the next big prize,” Oshoma asserted.
“Africa, especially regions like Northern Nigeria, DR Congo, Mali, Niger, and Sudan, holds the minerals that power future technologies. So when Trump shouts about ‘Christian genocide,’ it’s a cover for economic warfare,” he said. He posed a string of piercing questions: “Are Christians being killed in Nigeria? Yes. Are Muslims being killed too? Yes. Are these killings purely religious? Not necessarily. There’s illegal mining, arms trafficking, and power politics at play. Who manufactures and sells the arms used here? Who benefits from the chaos?”
Oshoma also recalled how, in 2014, the same narrative was used by opposition politicians, including now-President Tinubu, to undermine Goodluck Jonathan.
“When Tinubu and co went to America using the genocide narrative to oust Jonathan, they didn’t know the same strategy would be used against them someday,” he noted.
He warned the government to balance foreign relations with caution. “While Nigeria must combat insecurity and guarantee equality across board, it must also be firm and resolute in foreign policy. Nigeria should not be dictated to by the U.S. alone,” he said. “These countries are not here to save us — they are here for business. Otherwise, Christians would have visa-free access to America by now.”
Trump’s threat has no legal basis — Ufeli
Lagos-based rights advocate, Evans Ufeli took a strictly legal approach, dissecting Trump’s statements through the lens of international law and the UN Charter.
“The U.S. re-designation of Nigeria as a ‘Country of Particular Concern’ (CPC) is a legitimate diplomatic tool under its International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA). It identifies countries guilty of systematic violations of religious freedom and triggers policy measures like visa bans or aid restrictions. But it is not an act of war,” Ufeli explained.
He warned that any unilateral U.S. military action against Nigeria “would be unlawful and counterproductive.
“Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, no state may use or threaten force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another. Unless the UN Security Council authorizes it, or Nigeria consents, an invasion would violate international law,” he stressed.
Ufeli also noted that while Washington may be leveraging genuine human-rights concerns, its rhetoric risked inflaming nationalist backlash and derailing counterterrorism cooperation.
He said: “In practice, U.S. threats mix domestic politics with diplomacy. That combination may pressure Nigeria but also complicate joint efforts against Boko Haram, ISWAP and bandit networks.”
Ufeli outlined a series of steps for Nigeria to strengthen its domestic response and global standing. “The government must act in three dimensions: protection, accountability and reform,” he said.
“First, protect lives — deploy transparent security measures for vulnerable communities, especially in Plateau and Benue. Second, ensure impartial investigations and prosecution of perpetrators, including complicit officials. Third, address the deeper causes — resource conflicts, corruption, and governance failure, “ he said.
He called for an independent national commission of inquiry with international experts “to enhance credibility while keeping control in Nigerian hands.”
Ufeli urged Nigeria to use diplomacy, not defiance. “Invite the UN, AU or ECOWAS for technical assistance and present Nigeria’s own reform plan to the world. Turn this pressure into a reform opportunity,” he advised.
“The bottom line,” he concluded, “is that the safety and equal protection of all Nigerian citizens must drive every political and diplomatic response. Sovereignty should be defended, but accountability must not be deferred.”
Diplomacy, not muscle-flexing is needed — Ojo
For constitutional lawyer, Gbenga Ojo, Trump’s outburst was both insulting and undiplomatic.
“This outrage from President Trump is uncalled for. Nigeria is a sovereign nation and not a U.S. colony. Trump has no right to issue threats over internal disputes. He should have used diplomacy, not muscle-flexing,” he said.
Ojo lamented Nigeria’s slow diplomatic response, blaming it partly on the absence of key envoys. “Unfortunately, we don’t have an ambassador to the U.S. right now. That is a huge lapse. We must urgently fill such critical positions in Washington, London, and other major capitals,” he said.
He advised the Federal Government to engage U.S. officials directly to de-escalate tensions while reaffirming its commitment to human-rights protection. “Nigeria must insist on mutual respect. Dialogue is the only legitimate path in international relations,” Ojo added.
Between sovereignty, accountability
Trump’s rhetoric has once again underscored the fragile balance Nigeria must maintain — defending sovereignty without ignoring the world’s concerns. While legal experts unanimously reject the idea of foreign invasion, they also agree that Nigeria’s worsening insecurity and selective justice have emboldened external critics.
For years, reports by human rights groups have documented massacres in Christian-dominated communities across the Middle Belt, as well as retaliatory attacks elsewhere. The state’s weak response and political complicity have fuelled suspicion that religion drives official inaction.
The truth, as lawyers like Oshoma and Ufeli point out, is more complex — a toxic blend of poverty, corruption, land disputes, and political manipulation dressed in religious garb. Yet, for the families burying victims in Plateau, Benue, and Kaduna, such nuance means little.
Trump’s warning may be bluster, but it echoes a harsh reality: Nigeria’s internal failures are now global concerns. Every unpunished massacre, every security lapse, chips away at the shield of sovereignty.
The international equation
Beyond legality, Trump’s statement exposes a deeper contest, one where Nigeria’s instability is a pawn in great power rivalry. With BRICS nations wooing Africa, the U.S. cannot afford to lose strategic influence in the continent’s largest democracy. Nigeria’s oil, lithium, and uranium reserves make it both a partner and a target.
Yet, any attempt to turn humanitarian rhetoric into military aggression would ignite regional chaos. The UN Charter, African Union Constitutive Act, and ECOWAS Protocol all uphold the sanctity of national sovereignty and non-interference, except under extreme humanitarian crises authorised multilaterally — not unilaterally by a single nation.
The post Christian genocide: Lawyers fault Trump’s invasion threat appeared first on Vanguard News.
