When Justice Crosses Borders: The U.S. Call to Intervene in Nigeria’s Religious Killings. By Kenzua Abia, DIL, LL.B

The Tragedy at Home

For years, Nigeria has witnessed persistent and heartbreaking violence against Christians attacks on villages, burnt churches, displaced families, and the silent grief of communities forgotten between political promises and religious divisions. It’s no longer an isolated problem; it’s a national wound that reopens with every headline. But when news broke that some voices in the United States were calling for intervention citing the killings of Christians as grounds for international action Nigerians found themselves at a familiar crossroads between help and sovereignty.

The Humanitarian Argument

It's pertinent to understand that, from a humanitarian point of view, no one can dispute that the killings are unjustifiable. Under international law, every state is bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, both of which uphold the right to life, religion, and dignity. The call for foreign intervention often springs from a moral impulse  the belief that when a state fails to protect its people, the global community must step in. This idea is rooted in the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which emerged after genocides like Rwanda and Bosnia, reminding the world that sovereignty cannot be a shield for mass atrocities.

The Legal Reality

Yet, Nigeria’s sovereignty is not a decoration; it’s a constitutional fact. Section 2(1) of the 1999 Constitution declares Nigeria “one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state.” That means foreign intervention without consent or a United Nations mandate would directly violate Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which forbids the use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.Unless Nigeria explicitly invites assistance or the U.N. Security Council authorizes it under Chapter VII, any unilateral military or political intervention  no matter how well-intentioned would be unlawful under international law.

Even the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case reaffirmed that no state has the right to intervene in another’s internal affairs. The line between protection and interference must remain clear.

Between Help and Hegemony

This is where the debate gets uncomfortable. The same “help” that promises to save lives can sometimes undermine the very independence a nation needs to heal. Foreign intervention often arrives with hidden interests  oil, influence, or ideology.

This doesn’t mean Nigeria should reject international concern; it simply means we must be careful not to trade justice for dependency. A true partnership should respect Nigeria’s constitutional structure, allowing for cooperation  not control.

Where Nigeria Must Stand

It’s time for Nigeria to take its own justice seriously. The protection of life is the first duty of any nation, and as Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution reminds us, “the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.” To its credit, Nigeria has made visible strides from strengthening security cooperation to ongoing counterterrorism efforts. But progress must go further. If the Nigerian government deepens intelligence reforms, enforces justice without fear or favor, and rebuilds public trust, there will be no vacuum for outsiders to fill.

In Perspective

The killing of Christians, Muslims, or any group in Nigeria is not just a religious issue it is a human issue, and it demands a human solution grounded in law, compassion, and national will. Foreign nations may sympathize, but the real responsibility lies with us. As one of my inspirations, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, once said, “Freedom is never given; it is won.” The United States may call for justice, but only Nigerians can build it.