Twelve northern governors, prominent traditional rulers, and senior judges are at the centre of a looming diplomatic storm as the United States Congress considers a bill that could impose far-reaching sanctions on them over alleged complicity in what American lawmakers describe as a ?Christian genocide? and systemic persecution under Nigeria?s sharia and blasphemy laws.

This follows the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern by President Donald Trump and his instruction to the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to act without delay.

On Friday, Trump, in a post on Truth, lamented that thousands of Christians were being killed in Nigeria and asked Congressman Riley Moore, together with Chairman Tom Cole and the House Appropriations Committee, to immediately look into the matter and report back to him.

The Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025, sponsored by Republican Senator Ted Cruz, designates Nigeria as a ?Country of Particular Concern? for religious persecution.

The bill proposes direct sanctions against public officials and religious authorities accused of promoting or tolerating violence against Christians and other religious minorities.

In December 2020, the US Department of State designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern for the first time ever due to what it termed systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom, violent Boko Haram attacks, and frequent ethno-religious conflicts exacerbated by the judiciary system.

Under the bill, introduced on September 9, 2025, the US Secretary of State will, within 90 days of its passage, submit a report to Congress listing Nigerian officials, including governors, judges, and monarchs who have ?promoted, enacted, or maintained blasphemy laws? or ?tolerated violence by non-state actors invoking religious justification.?

The sanctions, to be implemented under Executive Order 13818, the US government?s Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability framework, could result in visa bans, asset freezes, and financial restrictions for those found culpable.

One of the highlights of the bill is the implementation of Sharia law in northern Nigeria, which it termed the blasphemy law, and believed to be against the Christian population.

Sharia, derived from Islamic jurisprudence, has long existed as a system of personal, moral, and communal regulation among Muslim communities in northern Nigeria.

The major turning point came between 1999 and 2000, shortly after Nigeria?s return to civilian rule, when several northern states, beginning with Zamfara under Governor Ahmad Sani Yerima, expanded Sharia?s jurisdiction to include criminal law and public morality.

Within two years, about 12 northern states had adopted similar Sharia-based penal codes and established parallel Sharia courts alongside existing secular courts.

The affected states include Zamfara, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina, Bauchi, Borno, Jigawa, Kebbi, Yobe, Kaduna, Niger, and Gombe.

However, Kwara, Kogi, Plateau, Benue, Nasarawa, Taraba, and Adamawa, though with significant Muslim populations, still operate under the conventional secular legal system, with Sharia limited only to personal status matters such as marriage, inheritance, and family issues for Muslims, rather than criminal or public law.

Recently, the Sharia Council announced moves to establish its presence in parts of the South, beginning with Oyo and Ogun states.

The development sparked tension as both Christian and Muslim groups clashed over the perceived introduction of Sharia in the two states.

The tension, however, eased after the council clarified that it was not setting up a court of law but rather arbitration panels to mediate Muslim-related disputes and offer non-binding advice.

Cruz, while defending the bill, said Nigeria?s leadership had ?institutionalised sharia law and enabled jihadist violence.?

?Religious persecution and violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria is endemic.

?Since 2009, over 52,000 Christians have been murdered, 20,000 churches and faith institutions destroyed, and dozens of villages wiped out. The federal and state governments have failed to act, and in many cases, they are complicit.?

The bill underscores that since the adoption of sharia law in Zamfara State in 2000, during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, nearly all 19 northern states had adopted blasphemy provisions in their legal codes.

States such as Kano, Bauchi, Sokoto, and Katsina have drawn global outrage for death sentences imposed over alleged blasphemy, while even southern states like Oyo and Ogun, both with Sharia panels, may now come under investigation.

FG defends Sharia

The Federal Government has, however, defended the country?s constitutional and legal framework on religious freedom, insisting that Nigeria neither enforces nationwide blasphemy laws nor persecutes Christians as claimed in the pending US draft legislation.

In an official policy note titled ?Nigeria?s Constitutional Commitment to Religious Freedom and Rule of Law,? published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the government maintained that the country?s constitutional and judicial systems fully protected freedom of religion and conscience while subjecting all state and local laws, including Sharia statutes, to constitutional safeguards and secular appellate review.

According to the statement, Nigeria remains a constitutional, multi-religious democracy? whose 1999 Constitution, as amended, forbids adoption of a state religion (Section 10), guarantees freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Section 38), and prohibits discrimination on grounds including religion (Section 42).

?Sharia in Nigeria is not a nationwide, compulsory system,? the document clarified.

?Certain northern states have enacted Sharia-based criminal provisions that apply only to persons who profess Islam; non-Muslims are not subject to those provisions.

?In civil or personal matters, such as marriage or inheritance, recourse to Sharia is elective, just as parties may choose customary or statutory regimes,? it added.

The Federal Government further emphasised that there was no federal offence of blasphemy in Nigerian law.

It added that national criminal statutes only addressed public-order breaches or acts likely to provoke violence, which are ?religion-neutral? and apply equally to all faiths.

?The government of Nigeria does not persecute Christians, in law or policy.

?Nigeria?s legal order protects all faiths equally; Christians freely build and register churches, run schools and charities, and hold public office across the Federation,? the statement read.

It reiterated that Sharia?s scope was constitutionally limited and optional.

?In civil matters, Sharia Courts of Appeal at the state and federal levels have jurisdiction only over Islamic personal law, and parties voluntarily elect this system through their marital or contractual choices.

?In criminal matters, only a handful of northern states have adopted Sharia-based codes, and jurisdiction remains confined strictly to Muslims. Non-Muslims cannot be tried under those laws.

?Even where a first-instance Sharia court enters a conviction, constitutional due-process standards, such as fair hearing, legal representation, and proof standards, apply.

?Secular appellate courts have repeatedly set aside or remitted convictions where procedures or rights were deficient. Sharia adjudication is bounded by the constitution, not above it,? the government explained.

The statement dismissed as inaccurate any claim that Nigeria?s laws or policies tolerated religious discrimination.

?Nothing in Nigeria?s Constitution, Criminal Code, or Penal Code authorises persecution of Christians or adherents of any religion,? it said.

The statement added that public-order offences sometimes described abroad as ?blasphemy laws? were in fact content-neutral provisions designed to prevent inter-communal violence.

The note also pointed out that Christian denominations and non-governmental organisations operated freely across the country, while Christians served at all levels of government and the judiciary, demonstrating equal civic participation.

Responding to allegations that Nigeria ?tolerates? religiously motivated violence by non-state actors, the government underscored its aggressive counter-terrorism stance.

?Boko Haram and ISWAP remain proscribed under the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, with thousands of arrests, prosecutions, and deradicalisation programmes underway,? it added.

The government said many attacks often framed internationally as ?religious? were instead rooted in terrorism, organised crime, resource conflict, and climate stress, adding that federal and state authorities deployed joint operations without bias to faith identity.

?Nigerian authorities consistently condemn sectarian violence, open investigations, and prosecute offenders where evidence meets the legal threshold,? the document stressed.

Nigeria reaffirmed its adherence to international human rights obligations, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples? Rights, domesticated and enforceable in Nigerian courts.

The government emphasised that all domestic laws, federal or state, must conform to these superior guarantees, and Nigerian courts have consistently upheld that principle in their judgments.

The government criticised the US draft legislation proposing a CPC designation for Nigeria, describing it as ?legally and factually flawed.?

It argued that the draft ?collapses distinct legal regimes ?federal, state statutory, and Sharia ? into a single, inaccurate frame,? and wrongly equated neutral public-order provisions with theological blasphemy.

Concerns raised

However, the implementation of Shari?a law has raised concerns about human rights and religious freedom following the reported suppression of non-Muslims through restrictions on public worship, construction of churches, and celebration of religious festivals for traditional religionists.

Also, converts from Islam to Christianity and other religions have alleged persecution, harassment, and even violence, while blasphemy laws are often vaguely worded, allowing for arbitrary interpretation and enforcement. This has enabled mobs to take the law into their own hands, resulting in violent and deadly consequences.

There was national outrage in May 2022 after Deborah Samuel, a second-year student of Home Economics at the Shehu Shagari College of Education, Sokoto, was killed after being accused of blasphemy against Islam. She was stoned and set ablaze by a mob of her fellow students. The perpetrators were not brought to justice.

Usman Buda, a butcher in Sokoto, was lynched by a mob after being accused of blasphemy, sparking widespread outrage. In 2021, a water seller in Bauchi State was beaten and burned to death for alleged blasphemy.

A similar fate befell Bridget Agbahime, 74, who was beaten to death in Kano in 2016, after she was accused of blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad.

In designating Nigeria as a ?Country of Particular Concern,? Trump cited alleged severe violations of religious freedom, particularly the persecution of Christians. He claimed that Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria, with thousands of Christians being killed by radical Islamists.

Trump warned that the US would take action, including potential military intervention, if Nigeria didn?t address the issue.

The US President also threatened to halt all aid and assistance to Nigeria should the Tinubu administration fail to end the alleged persecution and killing of Christians.

?If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the USA will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ?guns-a-blazing,? to completely wipe out the Islamic terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.

?I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians,? he said.

If passed, the Act would compel the US to impose targeted sanctions on officials enforcing Sharia or blasphemy laws; blacklist Nigerian actors complicit in religiously motivated violence, and maintain terror designations for Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa as Entities of Particular Concern.

Echoing Trump?s threat to invade Nigeria, the US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, signalled readiness to take military action over alleged killings of Christians in the country.

In an X post on Sunday, the top official said the US Department of War is preparing for action if Nigeria fails to protect Christians.

?The killing of innocent Christians in Nigeria ? and anywhere ? must end immediately. The Department of War is preparing for action. Either the Nigerian Government protects Christians, or we will kill the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities,? Hegseth wrote.

Under section 3, titled, ?Designations and amendments related to the International Religious Freedom Act,? the draft bill says the US Secretary of State shall ??Designate, for engaging in or tolerating systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations of religious freedom? (1) the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern; and (2) Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa as Entities of Particular Concern.??

The designation was based on a report hinged on section 402(b)(1)(A) of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 and section 301(a) of the Frank R. Wolf International Religious Freedom Act of 2016.

Tinubu US visit

Reacting to the development, the Presidency assured that Tinubu would meet with his American counterpart in the coming days to discuss allegations of Christian genocide in Nigeria. Daniel Bwala, Special Adviser to the President on Policy Communication, disclosed this in a post on X on Saturday.

Bwala said the planned meeting would focus on counterterrorism cooperation and clarifying misconceptions about the nature of terrorist attacks in Nigeria.

?Both President @officialABAT and President @realDonaldTrump have shared interests in the fight against insurgency and all forms of terrorism against humanity,? Bwala wrote.

?President Trump has assisted Nigeria a lot by authorising the sale of arms, and President Tinubu has adequately utilised that opportunity in the fight against terrorism, with massive results to show for it.

?As for the differences as to whether terrorists in Nigeria target only Christians or all faiths, those would be discussed and resolved by the two leaders when they meet in the coming days, either in the State House or White House.?

Weighing on the controversy, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, said the Nigerian leader had anticipated and responded to what he described as ?orchestrated moves? against Nigeria?s image abroad, particularly in the United States, by firmly reaffirming his government?s commitment to national security. However, he did not name specific actors behind the issue in a post on his official X handle.

?President Bola Tinubu was well ahead of the orchestrated game unfolding in America as he told the new service chiefs on Thursday what Nigerians expect of them. No more excuses, he said. Nigerians want results.?

The aide quoted Tinubu?s speech to the newly appointed service chiefs at the State House, Abuja, where he acknowledged the evolving nature of insecurity across Nigeria, expressing concern about ?the recent emergence of new armed groups? in the North-Central, North-West, and some parts of the South.

?We must not allow these new threats to fester. We must be decisive and proactive. Let us smash the new snakes right in the head,? Tinubu charged the military chiefs.

He stressed that citizens were no longer interested in excuses or blame-shifting, but in tangible results.

?Nigerians expect results, not excuses,? he said, calling for a new culture of innovation, patriotism, and pre-emptive strategy among the armed forces.

?Security threats are constantly evolving, constantly mutating. We cannot allow the crisis that began in 2009 to persist any longer,? the President said, referencing the Boko Haram insurgency and other forms of violent extremism.

He defended Nigeria?s constitutional commitment to freedom of belief, emphasising ongoing engagements with Christian and Muslim leaders.

The President also pledged Nigeria?s willingness to work with Washington and other global partners to deepen understanding and protect all faith communities.

Meanwhile, SaharaReporters reported on Sunday that Trump had ?delegated his Vice, James David Vance, to meet with Tinubu during the visit,? barring any last minute changes.

According to the report, Tinubu is scheduled to visit the United States on Tuesday for top level diplomatic engagements with the US government.

Envoys react

Concerned by the CPC designation, retired diplomats and foreign policy experts warned that the development could have far-reaching implications for diplomatic relations, security cooperation, and socio-economic development.

A former Nigerian ambassador to Algeria and Portugal, Mohammed Mabdul, warned that the designation would have ?broader implications,? including a reduction in US aid for socio-economic development.

?It will certainly minimise US aid to tackle socio-economic issues affecting the most vulnerable population in Nigeria, particularly in health care, educational support, microfinance schemes, and gender advocacy,? he said.

He added that visa restrictions were already being enforced. According to him, the decision would also affect security cooperation.

?Nigeria acquires most of its sophisticated weapons, drones, and other military equipment from the US in its fight against terrorists. With the policy of CPC, this cooperation, collaboration, and intelligence sharing between the two countries will be significantly reduced,? he pointed out.

Mabdul further observed that under the Tinubu administration, US-Nigeria relations had declined.

?Besides the regular UN activities in the US, President Tinubu?s foreign engagements were mostly directed to European countries such as the UK, France, and Italy, as well as countries of the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE,? he said.

?The implication is clear?there?s a lack of regular engagements at the highest level of leadership between Nigeria and the US, hence the mistrust and misrepresentation of events by Washington about Nigeria,? he added, urging the government to urgently post ambassadors and consuls to key missions abroad.

Former spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ogbole Amedu-Ode, stressed that, regardless of the motive, the development should serve as a wake-up call for the government to prioritise the protection of lives and property.

?For far too long, we have had a good serving of platitudes,? the former envoy to Mexico declared.

Amedu-Ode also warned of possible economic and political repercussions, including a decline in foreign investment from Western nations and potential isolation in international organisations.

He further noted that emerging economies could fill any economic vacuum created by reduced Western engagement.

?The economic implications for us are that foreign investment from the West may taper off! However, in the circumstance of the ?Neo-scramble?, other emerging economies will certainly fill the lacuna. Politically, and in the international arena, we should expect some form of isolation, especially within international organisations. Internally and within the national space, we may experience some more political tensions,? he cautioned.

He added, ?Nigerians should be extra vigilant, and political office holders must begin to take their constitutional responsibilities seriously.?

Retired Ambassador Godknows Igali emphasised the importance of diplomacy in handling such issues. He warned that major powers often impose their own interests in international relations.

?They tend to breathe down on you in terms of size, economic, political, and military weight. So, in a case like this, they tend to pursue their own objectives,? he stated.

Igali suggested that Nigeria could use friendly third countries to mediate the dispute. ?There must be some third countries which are close to the two sides. You know, some countries are friendly to them and friendly to us. And we can use their good offices to try to come in and help us to talk to the other side,? he advised.

He also urged caution in dealing with the US administration, saying, ?Trump is somebody who has his own views, very strong views on issues.?

Foreign affairs analyst Charles Onunaiju described the move as ?not new,? saying it reflects a long-standing hostile posture by the Trump administration.

?Well, the United States is Nigeria?s traditional partner. But I mean, what we are witnessing now is not just new. Over time, there has been a whole lot of hostile attitude from the Trump administration,? he said.

The analyst likened the US stance on Nigeria to its criticisms of China over human rights. According to Onunaiju, the designation could have significant economic consequences.

?The implication is very clear. It reduces our engagement with the United States officially. It has implications for investments. If you have designated a country of particular concern on account of genocide against a religious group, you send the wrong signal to investors,? he warned.

He urged FG not to respond with hostility but to focus on internal reforms. ?The way to go is not to reply bombast with bombast. We should also put out the facts very clearly. And, of course, do things that endear us as a very serious country,? the Director, Centre for China Studies, urged.

Onunaiju stated that the issue served as a ?wake-up call.? He added, ?It has absolutely broad implications. So, for me, it shouldn?t be taken lightly. We should do more to push back on some of these narratives.? (Excerpted from a report by The PUNCH)

Update news