Observations of the Centre for Community Law on the United States Christmas Day Military Action in Nigeria

 
Whereas:
For over 15 years, civilians in Nigeria have faced multiple security threats and atrocity risks due to attacks, kidnappings and extortion by various non-state armed groups. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the security situation has resulted in a humanitarian emergency, with more than 7.8 million people – approximately 80 percent of whom are women and children – requiring urgent assistance.
 
Amnesty International has reported that in the two years since the current government has been in power, at least 10,217 people have been killed in attacks by gunmen in Benue, Edo, Katsina, Kebbi, Plateau Sokoto and Zamfara state. Benue state accounts for the highest death toll of 6,896, followed by Plateau state, where 2,630 people were killed.
 
Amnesty International has reported that 638 villages sacked by bandits in Zamfara State alone.
 
There are various reports that the insurgents act with impunity with little or no resistance from government forces. This persists despite substantial government expenditure running into millions of dollars and official assurances that they are doing their utmost.
 
Reports indicate that affected civilian populations have repeatedly called for assistance in response to persistent attacks, loss of life, and the occupation of villages by armed groups, amid growing concerns regarding the capacity of State security institutions to effectively address the prevailing security challenges.
 
 For communities that have endured years of unrelenting terrorism, the notion of sovereignty has become a high‑sounding but hollow abstraction. Their overriding concern is survival; they would gladly embrace whoever delivers them from violence, even if such intervention is decried by others as a violation of sovereignty.
 
The Government of the United States of America has expressed heightened interest in the security and human rights situation in Nigeria, including by designating Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, based on its assessment that there is Christian Genocide occurring in Nigeria.
 
The Government of the United States of America issued warnings of possible military action should the situation persist.
 
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
 
Military action that would otherwise violate the prohibition on the use of force does not engage Article 2(4) where it is undertaken with the valid consent of the territorial State.
 
Consent to military action may be provided only by the territorial State. It is only the government of the territorial State that possesses the authority to consent to military action on its behalf, acting through the holder of the highest executive office of the State, namely the President. Such consent may also be communicated on the President’s behalf by the Minister responsible for foreign affairs.
 
For consent to excuse military action, it must be freely given and provided prior to the action. This excludes consent obtained through means falling within Articles 49 (fraud), 50 (corruption of a representative of a State), 51 (coercion of a representative of a State), and 52 (coercion of a State by the threat or use of force) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969.
 
A State that has given consent to military action cannot subsequently claim a violation of international law arising from that action unless it is established that the action exceeded the scope of the consent given, whether spatially or temporally. The burden rests on the acting State to demonstrate the existence and scope of valid consent.
 
Consent to military action may be given either at the initiative of the territorial State or at the request of the acting State.
 
Consent to military action does not excuse violations of international humanitarian law, which must at all times be observed and respected.
 
The Centre Notes:
That the United States of America conducted military strikes against certain targets on 25 December 2025 in Sokoto State, Nigeria.
 
That the strike reportedly involved more than a dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from a United States Navy vessel stationed in the Gulf of Guinea, targeting insurgents located in two ISIS camps in north-western Nigeria’s Sokoto State.
 
The public statement of the President of the United States that the United States had “launched a powerful and deadly strike against ISIS terrorist scum in Northwest Nigeria, who have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians, at levels not seen for many years, and even centuries,” and that he had previously warned such terrorists that “if they did not stop the slaughtering of Christians, there would be hell to pay.”
 
That the Minister in charge of Nigeria’s foreign affairs, Mr. Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, confirmed that the Nigerian Government was aware of the impending strike, following a prior conversation with the United States Secretary of State, during which the impending strike and the need for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s consent were discussed.
 
That the Minister further stated that both governments had synchronised positions regarding a joint statement to be released following the strike.
 
The Centre is concerned that:
Initial statements from key United States officials, including the President of the United States and the United States Department of War, made no reference to seeking or obtaining the consent of the Nigerian State.
 
Several unilateral and, at times, contradictory public statements have since been issued by both governments, falling short of the joint statement that the Nigerian Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated would be released following the strike.
 
The conflicting positions of both governments regarding the legal and factual basis for the military action raise serious questions as to whether Nigeria’s consent, if or when given, took account of the United States’ stated motivation for the military action, namely its belief that there is an ongoing genocide against Christians in Nigeria.
 
That The Nigerian Government has consistently denied that there is an ongoing Christian genocide in Nigeria, raising further questions as to whether Nigeria would validly consent to military action on its territory framed explicitly as action “to stop the slaughtering of Christians.”
 
A spokesperson for the Nigerian President, Mr. Daniel Bwala, stated on Sky News that reports concerning the exact targets of the strike were unclear and that the Nigerian Government would, in the coming days, determine whether the targets were ISIS, Lakurawa, or armed bandit groups. It remains unclear whether bandits or Lakurawa have been designated as terrorist organisations under Nigerian or international law.
 
That it would appear from Daniel Bwala’s statement that the Nigerian Government may be acting on the belief that the United States possesses global jurisdictional authority over ISIS and its affiliates, independent of the consent of the territorial State. Such a belief, if held, would be inconsistent with established principles of international law governing the use of force.
 
Conclusions
Where the consent of the sovereign state is clearly and unequivocally established, the actions of the intervening state cannot be characterised as unlawful because Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is not engaged and there is no violation of territorial integrity.
 
The use of force by the United States on the territory of Nigeria on 25 December 2025 constitutes, prima facie, a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter unless it can be demonstrated that such force was undertaken pursuant to valid, prior, and freely given consent by the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
 
While Nigerian officials have asserted that the Nigerian Government was aware of the impending strike, the absence of a clear, public, and consistent acknowledgment of consent by both States raises serious doubt as to whether valid consent that meets the requirements of international law was in fact given.
 
The failure of initial United States statements to reference Nigerian consent, coupled with subsequent contradictory and unilateral statements by both governments, undermines the transparency necessary to establish the legality of the military action under international law.
 
The publicly stated justification advanced by the President of the United States, namely, the alleged “slaughtering of Christians” and claims of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, is inconsistent with the Nigerian Government’s long-standing denial of the existence of such genocide. This inconsistency raises material questions as to whether any consent given by Nigeria was informed, specific, and aligned with the actual motivation and objectives of the acting State.
 
Where the acting State relies on a factual or legal basis for the use of force that is expressly rejected by the territorial State, any purported consent risks being vitiated by error or misrepresentation and may fail to meet the standards required under international law.
 
Uncertainty regarding the identity of the targets of the strike – whether ISIS, Lakurawa, or armed bandit groups – further casts doubt on whether the military action remained within the spatial, temporal, and material scope of any consent that may have been given.
 
Any reliance on an asserted global jurisdiction or unilateral authority by the United States to use force against ISIS and affiliated groups, independent of the consent of the territorial State, finds no support in international law and cannot serve as a lawful basis for the strike.
 
In the absence of clear, consistent, and jointly articulated evidence of valid consent and a lawful basis for the use of force, the Christmas Day military action risks setting a dangerous precedent for unilateral military interventions in Nigeria based on contested humanitarian or religious grounds.
 
The Centre for Community Law concludes that both the United States and Nigeria bear a responsibility to clarify, with urgency and transparency, the legal basis, scope, and factual justification for the strike, in order to uphold the integrity of the international legal order and prevent the erosion of the prohibition on the use of force.
 
While the public awaits clear and consistent details as to the actual targets of the action and the casualty level recorded, the Centre stresses that even if valid consent were established, such consent would not excuse violations of international humanitarian law. The legality of the strike therefore remains contingent upon compliance with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.
 
This statement is made by the undersigned for and on behalf of the Centre for Community Law.
 
Professor Amos O Enabulele
Michael Agbo, Esq
Sharon Ogbuehi. 
Akinloluwa Tokede. 
Obehioye Precious Onotiebhoria 
⁠Mercy Olatayo 
Aghosa Muehanosa FearGod 
 
 
30. 12. 2025