By Emma Nnadozie
The former southeast spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu Denge.Josef Onoh has addressed the recent statement by an aide to Former President Muhammadu Buhari (late) over Mr. Bashir Ahmad’s sovereignty argument by affirming Nigeria’s right to self-determination and practice of sharia laws.
Onoh while addressing journalists in Abuja on Sunday highlighted the constitutional limits on Sharia and the global duty to address human rights abuses.
Onoh stated that Mr. Bashir Ahmaad’s defense of Sharia law as a sovereign right ignores Nigeria’s Constitution, which reigns supreme under Section 1(1). Sharia law isn’t above it—Article 10 explicitly prohibits any state religion, making Nigeria secular, not Islamic. The 1999 Constitution (as amended) allows Sharia only for personal matters (e.g., marriage, inheritance) under Section 262-264 for Sharia Courts of Appeal, not criminal penal laws like amputations or stoning, which violate Sections 33 (right to life) and 34 (dignity of person). Northern states’ expansion of Sharia into penal codes since 1999 (e.g., Zamfara) undermines this, polarizing the nation and breaching the secular framework.
To educate and clarify Mr. Bashir Ahmaad, may i point out that the U.S. has jurisdiction to intervene under international law, particularly the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA), reinforced by President Trump’s 2025 designation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” due to escalating Christian and Muslim killings by terrorists (e.g., Pastor Yahaya’s murder). The UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 18) and the Genocide Convention (1948) empower global action against religious persecution. When Nigeria fails to protect its citizens, as seen in abductions and massacres, the U.S. can impose sanctions (e.g., visa bans, financial penalties) to uphold human rights—a duty, not interference. Defend sovereignty, yes, but not at the cost of constitutional integrity or lives.
Mr.Bashir Ahmaad, while questioning the US legitimacy to interfere should also put into consideration that Sharia Law isn’t above the Nigerian Constitution.
As much as practicing Sharia law isn’t a crime, it’s important to always remember that Constitutional Supremacy prevails as clearly defined in Section 1(1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) declares the Constitution as the supreme law, and any law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of its inconsistency (Section 1(3)). Sharia law, as implemented in northern states, derives its legitimacy only within the constitutional framework, not independently.
let me remind Mr. Ahmad, that I’m not against the practice of sharia laws but he should remember that it has a Limited Scope as evident in Sections 262-264 establish Sharia Courts of Appeal with jurisdiction limited to Islamic personal law (e.g., marriage, divorce, inheritance) for Muslims who opt for it. Criminal penal laws (e.g., stoning for adultery, amputation for theft) introduced since 1999 in states like Zamfara exceed this mandate and conflict with fundamental rights guaranteed under Chapters IV (e.g., Sections 33, 34, 35).
Sharia Law Undermines the Nigerian Constitution, because article 10 explicitly states that “The Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State Religion.” This distinguishes Nigeria from an Islamic nation, ensuring a neutral state that accommodates diverse faiths. The expansion of Sharia into criminal justice in northern states contradicts this, creating a de facto religious state within a secular federation.
-The imposition of penal Sharia laws (e.g., the 2022 Deborah Samuel lynching over blasphemy) has deepened religious and ethnic divides, undermining national unity and the Constitution’s equality provisions (Section 42). It also clashes with the Federal Government’s exclusive legislative powers over criminal law (Section 4(5)), as state-level penal codes bypass federal authority.
It’s important Nigerians avoid contributing from a point of ignorance or seeking political relevance, the U.S. Powers to Intervene and UN Support is proclaimed under
-International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) 1998. This U.S. law authorizes the designation of “Countries of Particular Concern” (CPC) for severe religious freedom violations. Sadly On October 31, 2025, President Trump cited the mass slaughter of Christians (and Muslims) by terrorists, aligning with reports of over 1,000 deaths annually (e.g., Pastor Yahaya’s killing on October 30, 2025). The Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025, proposed by Senator Ted Cruz, leverages IRFA to impose sanctions, a legal tool under U.S. foreign policy.
May i educate Mr. Bashir Ahmaad, that the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948, Article 18) guarantees freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948, Article I) obligates states to prevent and punish acts of genocide, including those targeting religious groups. The UN Human Rights Council’s special procedures and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) further support international scrutiny of Nigeria’s security failures, justifying U.S. action when domestic mechanisms falter.
Finally, under customary international law, states can act when a government fails to protect its citizens from mass atrocities (e.g., Boko Haram’s abductions). The U.S.’s proposed sanctions align with this principle, targeting officials enforcing unconstitutional Sharia laws linked to persecution, not dictating Nigeria’s legal system.
The post Trump’s Threat: US has power to intervene, Onoh replies Bashir Ahmaad appeared first on Vanguard News.
