The African Bar Association (AfBA) has expressed deep concern over a U.S. military operation carried out in Nigeria on Christmas Day, December 25, 2025, warning that the action raises serious legal, sovereignty and geopolitical questions under international law.
In a statement dated January 2, 2026, the pan-African legal body said it was alerted to the operation, reportedly conducted by U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) against ISIS-linked terrorist forces in Sokoto State, and cautioned that counterterrorism efforts must not erode state sovereignty or open the door to the militarisation of Africa.
While acknowledging the obligation of states to protect their citizens, AfBA, in a statement signed by its President, High Chief Ibrahim Eddy Mark and Secretary General, Dr Prudence Acirokop, warned that such military actions must not breach the United Nations Charter, nor “metastasise into tacit recolonisation” or serve foreign ideological, religious, economic or political interests.
Conflicting Accounts from Washington and Abuja
Central to AfBA’s concerns are conflicting public explanations offered by the United States and Nigeria regarding the purpose and character of the operation.
U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking via his Truth Social platform, said he personally authorised the strike to “obliterate militants committing genocide against Christians in Nigeria,” adding that further operations would follow if attacks continued.
Nigeria’s government, however, struck a different tone. In a public statement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said the operation—supported by Nigeria through the provision of operational intelligence—was not based on religious considerations, but aimed at eliminating terrorist threats in line with Nigeria’s security policy. The minister stressed that terrorism, whether directed at Christians, Muslims or other communities, remains an affront to Nigeria’s values and international peace.
AfBA said the divergent narratives raise urgent questions about command authority, operational control and intent in a sovereign state.
Legal and Sovereignty Questions
According to the association, President Trump’s framing of the operation as a religiously motivated intervention was particularly troubling. AfBA argued that the language used appeared tailored to satisfy the ideological objectives of a domestic political base rather than the collective security needs of all Nigerians.
The legal body emphasised that terrorist violence in Nigeria is complex and multi-dimensional, with criminal networks operating across national and international borders, and cannot be reduced to a single religious narrative.
AfBA reaffirmed its condemnation of terrorism in Nigeria, across Africa and globally, and said it welcomes legitimate international cooperation to defeat terrorist threats—provided such efforts protect civilians without discrimination and comply with international law.
However, the association said the U.S. operation did not appear to fall within the limited exceptions under international law that permit the use of force in another state, including UN Security Council authorization, self-defence or collective self-defence under Article 51, or Chapter VII enforcement actions.
African Charter and AFRICOM Concerns
AfBA further warned that the justification offered by the United States conflicts with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which explicitly condemns colonialism, neo-colonialism, aggressive foreign military bases and discrimination based on religion or other grounds.
The association called on Nigeria to clarify allegations that the operation was launched from AFRICOM facilities in the Gulf of Guinea, noting that such arrangements could contradict Africa’s longstanding opposition to permanent foreign military bases on the continent.
While acknowledging Nigeria’s statement that it consented to the operation, AfBA said consent alone does not resolve the issue. It questioned why Nigeria, having granted consent, did not retain operational command and control, warning that repeated foreign-led operations could evolve into a permanent military presence in Nigeria, the Gulf of Guinea, the Sahel and wider Africa.
Warning Against Militarisation of Africa
AfBA urged the Nigerian government to urgently limit the scope of the operation and mitigate its broader consequences, stressing the need to respect Nigeria’s constitutional order and international, regional and sub-regional treaty obligations.
The association also highlighted what it described as deeper structural drivers of terrorism in Africa, including colonial and neo-colonial economic interests, illicit arms flows, money laundering and transnational networks exploiting instability to dominate mineral resources and maritime routes.
Rather than expanded military interventions, AfBA called on Nigeria, the United States and Western countries to intensify cooperation through international treaties and bilateral frameworks aimed at cutting off terrorist financing, weapons proliferation and logistical support.
A Broader Test for Sovereignty
AfBA’s statement positions the Christmas Day operation as more than a counterterrorism action, framing it as a test case for African sovereignty, international law and the future balance between security cooperation and foreign military involvement on the continent.
As the debate continues, the association said clarity, transparency and adherence to international legal norms are essential to ensuring that the fight against terrorism does not undermine the very principles it claims to defend.
