Ex-Director General of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies (NIALS) and distinguished legal scholar Professor M.T. Ladan highlights that state consent is the primary determinant in whether nations comply with or violate principles of international law, as interpreted by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He also examines the potential avenues for accountability and remedial measures moving forward.
1. Context:
The December 25, 2025, U.S. airstrikes in Sokoto were officially framed by both nations as a collaborative counter-terrorism effort with Nigerian government consent, which is central to the legal analysis of territorial sovereignty The core legal debate under international law and Nigerian constitutional law revolves around whether genuine, constitutionally-compliant consent was granted and the nature of the operation itself.
●Nigerian Consent to the U.S. Operation, When, and How Granted?:
Nigerian officials, including the Foreign Minister and Director of Defence Information, stated the operation was a “joint operation” conducted with the “explicit approval” of President Bola Tinubu and “in coordination with Nigerian authorities”. The U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) corroborated this, stating the strikes were conducted “at the request of Nigerian authorities.”
●Source of Launch: The strikes were reportedly launched using Tomahawk missiles from a U.S. Navy warship in the Gulf of Guinea, rather than a fixed U.S. military base in Nigeria itself, as Nigeria has historically opposed the establishment of foreign bases on its soil.
●Constitutional Compliance: Nigeria’s constitution requires specific procedures for external military operations on its territory. The debate focuses on whether presidential “approval” is sufficient or if legislative oversight (such as National Assembly approval) was required, particularly as the action was a direct foreign military intervention. Critics argue that the government’s belated and differing public statements (compared to the U.S. President’s immediate announcement suggests a lack of full, transparent compliance with national protocols, potentially undermining Nigeria’s sovereignty.
2. Compliance Or Violation of International Law and ICJ Principles:
●The legality of the U.S. action is primarily assessed under the UN Charter and customary international law regarding the use of force, specifically the principles of sovereignty, non-intervention, and self-defense.
●Territorial Sovereignty and Non-Intervention Principles: Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, all states must respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other states. The core ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986) established that any intervention by one state in the internal or external affairs of another is a violation of international law.
●Application (With Consent): Valid consent from the host state makes a foreign military operation lawful, as it is no longer an “intervention” in the prohibited sense. If Nigeria’s consent was legitimate and constitutionally valid, the U.S. action would likely be compliant with international law, provided the operations adhered to international humanitarian law (targeting only combatants and minimizing civilian harm).
●Application (Without Consent): If Nigeria’s consent was absent, invalid, or merely a diplomatic cover, the U.S. strike would constitute a direct violation of Nigeria’s territorial sovereignty and the ICJ principles outlined in the Nicaragua case.
●Self-Defense Principle: Article 51 of the UN Charter permits the use of force in collective or individual self-defense against an “armed attack.”
●Application: The U.S. framed the strikes as counter-terrorism efforts against an ISIS affiliate. For the “collective self-defense” argument to hold up, there must be an armed attack on Nigeria, and Nigeria must request assistance.
●The “pretext of protecting Christians” narrative, which some sources suggest, was a domestic U.S. political framing rather than a legal justification could complicate this if it implied a unilateral, uninvited intervention.
●International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Principle: Even in a lawful operation, IHL (e.g., Geneva Conventions principles) requires distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality, and precaution.
●Application: Reports of debris falling in civilian areas (Jabo and Offa, Kwara State) and questions about the precision of the strikes raised concerns about potential IHL violations, which would carry serious legal implications regardless of Nigerian consent.
●Nigerian and US military officials stated that the operation was intelligence-driven, targeted specific militant camps, and reportedly resulted in no civilian casualties, indicating an intent to comply with IHL.
●Hence, the key determinant of a violation or otherwise lies in the legal validity and scope of the Nigerian government’s consent under both domestic and international law.
3. LEGALITY BY CONSENT: Under international law, a sovereign state can consent to another state conducting military operations within its territory to address threats like terrorism. This consent negates the argument of a violation of sovereignty.
●Official Framing: Nigerian officials consistently framed the action as a “joint operation” or “precision hits on terrorist targets” to protect all Nigerians, contradicting the U.S. President’s focus on protecting only Christians.
●If the Strikes Were Unilateral (Without Consent) or had the U.S. conducted the strikes without Nigerian government consent, it would have constituted a clear violation of key international laws and principles, based on the following core ICJ rulings:
●Violation of the UN Charter: Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Unilateral military action in another country’s territory is a breach of this fundamental rule, unless authorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII or done in self-defense (neither of which was the public justification here).
●Breach of Territorial Sovereignty: The principle of state sovereignty is foundational to international law. It grants every state exclusive control over its territory, free from external interference. The ICJ, in cases like the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case, affirmed that the unauthorized presence and military action of foreign forces on another state’s territory is a violation of its sovereignty and a breach of the principle of non-intervention.
●Violation of the Principle of Non-Intervention: This principle, a well-established rule of customary international law, prohibits states from coercively interfering in the internal or external affairs of another state. The ICJ in the Nicaragua case held that “coercion…forms the very essence of prohibited intervention”. Unilateral armed intervention, even for purported humanitarian reasons or to protect a specific group without host-state consent, is considered an illegal act of coercion in international law.
●Pretext of Protecting Christians: While the U.S. President announced the strikes were in response to the “slaughtering of Christians,” the motive does not, in itself, provide a legal justification for bypassing the requirement for state consent in international law. Intervention for the sake of protecting a specific religious group, without Security Council authorization or an invitation from the host nation, lacks a clear basis in the UN Charter framework and could be seen as selective interference.
4. ANY EVIDENCE OF HARM and Accountability Measures:
●There are conflicting reports regarding the impact of the strikes as at 30th December 2025.
Official claims: Both U.S. and Nigerian officials stated that multiple ISIS militants were killed in the targeted areas (primarily the Bauni forest axis of the Tangaza Local Government Area) and stressed that no civilian casualties or harm to civilian objects were recorded.
●Lack of independent verification: There is little publicly available evidence beyond official statements to substantiate claims of success or verify the exact number of terrorists killed or the extent of any civilian harm, which has led to calls for transparency from local groups and opposition parties.
■ACCOUNTABILITY AND REMEDIAL MEASURES:
Given the conflicting reports and the official stance of a joint operation, options for accountability and remedial measures would likely follow these paths:
●Against the Nigerian government , potential domestic legal mechanisms exist:
• Affected individuals (if any are confirmed) could potentially seek compensation through the Nigerian courts if they can prove negligence or improper targeting by the Nigerian military during the joint operation, although this can be a difficult process. On government compensation, the Nigerian Air Force has historically compensated victims of past accidental airstrikes. If civilian harm is officially acknowledged, similar ad-hoc compensation might be available. Remedial Measures could include official apologies, investigations, disciplinary action against personnel, and potentially reparations or compensation for victims and their families if harm is confirmed.
● The key area for potential accountability lies in the adherence to IHL and the verification of civilian casualties, with potential remedial measures involving compensation if harm is proven.
● Against the United States, available Diplomatic/State level measures may be explored. Any formal action against the U.S. would typically need to be pursued by the Nigerian state.
• The first step would be a joint U.S.-Nigeria investigation (or potentially an independent international body) to verify on-the-ground impacts, particularly concerning local claims of non-terrorist targets being hit or property damage.
•Remediation: If civilian harm is verified, accountability and remedial measures could include:
Apology and Official acknowledgement of harm by the U.S. and Nigerian governments.
Compensation: Financial compensation for affected civilians and for the repair of civilian objects damaged during the strikes.
Policy Review: A review of intelligence and targeting protocols to prevent future incidents.
•Why/How: Accountability would be pursued through diplomatic channels and existing bilateral agreements between the U.S. and Nigeria, rather than the ICJ, which typically only hears cases between states and requires both states to consent to its jurisdiction.
•The operation was executed as a collaborative security effort, thus avoiding a direct legal challenge to sovereignty that a unilateral U.S. attack would have entailed.
