Introduction

Nigeria has once again captured the world’s attention, not in terms of its economic potential or even its democratic development. Still, the wave of violence is sweeping through, claiming thousands of lives, most especially in the northern part of the country. The nation is under persistent Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgencies, banditry, and intercommunal wars, which have ravaged rural society and displaced millions of people.

Following this crisis, the threat by former President Donald Trump of the U.S. to deploy military force has also sparked outrage, evoking a question that has long been asked: in the event a government fails to safeguard its citizens, does the world have the moral or legal right or obligation to intervene?

Although his statements are controversial and politically charged, Trump has brought up the international argument on whether Nigeria has the responsibility to protect (R2P) its people against mass atrocities.

Those on the intervention side claim that Nigeria is not only unable to stop murders but also does not want to stop them because they are complicit, and that those who view sovereignty are telling them that being involved would only be the beginning of a bad situation.

The discussion reflects the ghostly ineffectiveness of Rwanda (1994), the Darfur crisis in Sudan, and the Syrian conflict, during which international reluctance cost thousands of lives.

This article examines Nigeria’s internal crisis and how the world has responded to the risks posed by the Trump administration. It discusses both Nigeria’s problems and the international reactions, concluding that the key question is not whether foreign countries should intervene, but whether Nigeria can regain its moral and political strength by taking decisive action to protect its people.

The article argues that having sovereignty without taking responsibility weakens the country’s power and the world’s trust in it. To move forward, Nigeria needs to turn its promise of sovereignty into tangible actions that offer protection, justice, and accountability.

Trump’s Threat and Nigeria’s Reaction

On November 1, 2025, Donald Trump posted a surprising statement on his X account that caught the attention of many people in Washington and Abuja. He claimed that Nigeria was allowing radical Islamists to kill thousands of Christians and said the U.S. would no longer ignore these horrors.

He directed the Pentagon to explore military options if the Nigerian government did not take decisive action. His comments sparked quick international backlash, with many comparing them to previous U.S. interventions and questioning America’s motives in Africa.

In Nigeria, the government responded swiftly. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned the U.S. ambassador, and some of the top officials granted interviews, which criticized Trump’s statements as irresponsible and inflammatory. Foreign Minister Yusuf Maitama Tuggar denied that there was persecution of either Christians or Muslims, saying the government protects both groups.

He explained that violence in Nigeria stems from complex local issues like poverty, land disputes, insurgency, and organized crime, rather than a targeted attack on any religious group. Nigerian officials also warned that outside interference would violate their sovereignty and could further destabilize the country.

While Trump was understandably upset, his comments found support among some American evangelical groups and conservative commentators who have long been critical of Nigeria’s handling of Christian persecution. This created a split perspective: some viewed Nigeria as complicit in religious violence, while others pointed to broader
socio-economic issues contributing to the crisis.

Analysts argued that focusing solely on Christian persecution overlooks the fact that many Muslims suffer from extremist violence in places like Borno, Yobe, and Zamfara states.

The real issue lies beneath the political drama. While Trump’s statements were dramatic, they reflected frustration with Nigeria’s ongoing turmoil. Many international players have urged Nigeria to improve civilian security and hold both security forces and insurgents accountable for their actions.

America’s threat of possible military action may not materialize, but it reflects growing impatience with what is perceived as a lack of an effective response from Nigeria.

Understanding the Responsibility to Protect

Although the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is an international rule established by United Nations member states in 2005. It was created to address the failures of the global community in stopping mass violence, as seen in Rwanda and the Balkans.

The primary concept is that a country’s sovereignty entails the responsibility to protect its
citizens. Governments must safeguard their people from four serious crimes: genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. If a government cannot protect its citizens, the responsibility falls to the broader international community.

The Responsibility to Protect has three main parts. The first part states that a government must protect its own people and work hard to keep them safe. The second part encourages other countries to assist governments struggling to fulfill this responsibility through support, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid.

The third part, which is often debated, allows for international action, including sanctions and military intervention, if a government refuses or cannot prevent mass violence.

This framework aims to prevent tragedies like Rwanda and Srebrenica, where indecision led to the loss of many lives.

However, the application of Responsibility to Protect has varied and often depends on political factors rather than a commitment to protect. For example, R2P was used to justify NATO airstrikes in Libya in 2011, but was
stalled in Syria due to disagreements in the Security Council.

In Nigeria, the issue of R2P raises both moral and political questions. The government claims it is not failing its duty, yet ongoing violence, displacement, and lack of accountability raise serious concerns. The real question is whether the government’s slow response is due to its inability to act or its unwillingness to face the reality of
governance and justice in the country.

Nigeria’s Internal Crisis: scope, causes, and challenges

Nigeria is facing several interconnected challenges that could have a significant impact on the entire country. The three most significant issues are:
 An Islamist rebellion in the northeast led by Boko Haram and its offshoot, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP).
 There are rising conflicts between farmers and herders in the central region, known as the middle belt.

 Violent actions by bandits, including kidnappings and targeted attacks on rural communities in the northwest. These problems combine civilian deaths, large-scale displacement, and social divisions.

Scope of Numbers

According to research, the human toll has surged. Stated conflict data supplied to Reuters indicate that there have already been at least 2,266 killings during the first half of 2025, which compares to 1,083 in 2024, and this is more than the total 2,194 in 2024 alone.

An independent public-health records registry registered 6,931 violent deaths
between June 2023 and March 2024. Such figures reflect only direct deaths; millions displaced, livelihoods destroyed, and acute food insecurity are not included.

Illustrative Atrocities

 December 2023: In coordinated attacks in the state of Plateau, 100+ villagers were killed in several days.
 May 2025: Benue state raid resulted in the death of around 42 inhabitants, most of them were women and children, which caused an alarm of famine.
 Northeast: Continued militia attacks on bases and towns spur refugee exodus.

Government Response

Meanwhile, Abuja employs a toolkit that is both multi-pronged and strained, comprising massive military sweeps, airstrikes, alliances of vigilantes, and proclaimed special operations. The military boasts about neutralizing hundreds of militants and some occasional rescues of hostages and increased aerial operations in 2025.

Yet gains remain episodic. The soldiers are thinly hedged down to the theaters and crippled by patchy intelligence, logistical glitches, and even chronic abuse by some units.

Root Causes and Persistent Challenges

The ongoing crisis persists due to deep-rooted issues, not because states have ignored it. The main problems are:

 Capacity issues: There is chronic underfunding, old equipment, and not enough staff.
 Governance problems: Corruption, weak borders, and political bias in deployment decisions.
 Socio-economic factors: Climate change is causing resource shortages, which lead to more conflicts between farmers and herders. There is also high youth unemployment and gangs that profit from kidnapping for ransom.

 Lack of accountability: Few people get prosecuted for crimes, and local elites often protect offenders.

Civil society is calling for quicker investigations and condemning powerful brokers for their actions. While there are some individual cases of abuse, the evidence shows that the problem is systemic rather than an organized refusal to protect citizens.

This situation suggests that reforms, like better training, increased funding, and community policing, are more urgent than international intervention. To close the gaps, leaders need to prioritize the safety of civilians over the interests of the elite.

Global Reaction and Debate

On November 1, 2025, President Trump threatened military action in Nigeria to respond to the systematic killing of Christians. His remarks received widespread attention, especially since he framed them as a response to violence by extremists.

This led him to order the Pentagon to plan for military intervention and cut aid, echoing Senator Ted
Cruz’s concerns about Christians being targeted. However, U.S. analysts warned that this approach could harm relationships with Nigeria, a key ally, and overlook complex issues such as competition for resources.

The European Union urged diplomatic solutions, supporting aid and reforms over the use of military force, and emphasized Nigeria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The African Union promoted dialogue and non-interference. ECOWAS encouraged the sharing of intelligence in a non-threatening manner.

Nigerian President Bola Tinubu denied any genocide but accepted a joint anti-terrorism plan, condemning violence against both Muslims and Christians. Human rights organizations, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, called for accountability for both state and insurgent violence. China criticized Trump’s threats and backed Nigeria.

This situation raises a key question: Does external pressure violate Nigeria’s sovereignty, or is intervention necessary in what are seen as failed states? Critics argue that Trump’s statements are reckless and overly aggressive, while supporters say they highlight global indifference to human rights abuses.

The discussions remind us of past tragedies like Rwanda and Sudan, forcing the world to choose between the moral cost of doing nothing and the risks of getting involved. Voices from Nigeria, whether it’s Falana expressing embarrassment or Obi showing urgency, call for reform instead of military intervention.

Ethical and Legal Implications of Intervention: Sovereignty vs. Responsibility to Protect

The debate surrounding Nigeria today revolves around the conflict between national sovereignty and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Sovereignty allows a country to operate independently without outside interference, but R2P suggests that this right is conditional. A state must protect its citizens from mass atrocities, and if it fails to do so, its sovereignty does not shield it from international scrutiny.

Nigeria argues that foreign intervention, like the military action suggested by Trump, violates its sovereignty and could lead to internal unrest. Legally, the UN Charter supports this view. Article 2(7) states that intervention in a country’s domestic matters is not allowed.

However, Chapter VII of the Charter provides for collective action when
atrocities threaten international peace and security. This creates a complex situation in which internal problems can escalate into global issues.

The ethical argument for intervention focuses on the idea that protecting human life is more important than respecting political boundaries. Supporters of R2P believe that staying neutral during mass killings is the same as being complicit.

They point to tragedies in Rwanda and Darfur, where inaction led to massive loss of life. However, critics argue that foreign interventions often serve hidden political interests. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011 began with claims of humanitarian concerns but ultimately caused long-term instability. Trump’s threat to Nigeria raises similar worries, as the humanitarian language often masks strategic or political motives.

In Nigeria’s case, it’s not just about external rights but also about the government’s credibility. A government that fails to ensure security may face external pressure, even if intervention is not imminent. R2P should ideally be carried out collectively by the UN Security Council. Without this agreement, Trump’s proposal lacks legitimacy and could undermine the global order it seeks to uphold.

The key question is whether maintaining legal order through sovereignty is more important than addressing atrocities through moral responsibility. The global community, along with Nigeria, must find a balance that protects citizens without allowing humanitarian intervention to become a means of political control. True sovereignty
involves not resisting scrutiny but gaining legitimacy by protecting one’s people.

The Domestic and International Political Calculus

The challenge posed by President Trump and his actions has become a test of both politics and humanity. In Nigeria, political leaders are feeling pressure to stand firm and independent against external challenges. President Bola Tinubu’s government has described Trump’s statements as reckless and inflammatory, asserting that Nigeria is a functioning democracy capable of addressing its security issues without external assistance.

However, many Nigerians, especially those in areas affected by violence, feel the government is not taking their struggles seriously and is focusing more on its image than on ensuring safety. Civil society groups and religious organizations are
pushing for transparency, security reforms, and greater local involvement. They warn that being defensive will not solve a crisis that has existed for decades.

For Trump, the chaos in Nigeria aligns with his political message, portraying him as a protector of persecuted Christians and a strong leader internationally. His remarks target evangelical voters in the U.S. and present him as someone willing to confront weak governments abroad.

However, his words have caused division within U.S.
political circles. Diplomats and national security officials worry that threatening conflict in Nigeria, Africa’s most populous democracy, could harm long-term cooperation and damage regional counterterrorism efforts.

This situation puts global players in a challenging position. The European Union and the United Nations emphasize dialogue and are calling for investigations into civilian massacres while discouraging military actions.

ECOWAS and the African Union face a difficult choice between standing in solidarity and ensuring accountability. They don’t want to appear submissive to Western pressure, but by staying silent, they risk undermining their credibility as regional peacekeepers.

Nigeria has become a battleground for competing narratives, like Syria and Sudan in the past, showcasing national pride and a reputation for international responsibility.

Additionally, outside criticism will only lead to change if Nigeria takes action. The government needs to show real progress in reducing violence, strengthening institutions, and protecting civilians’ lives to shift the narrative. However, continued inaction will mean that even the most vigorous defense of sovereignty may not stop
international scrutiny.

Conclusion

The situation in Nigeria has become a serious moral and political issue for both the government and the international community. The ongoing killings by insurgents, bandits, and local militias show an apparent failure in governance and protecting citizens.

President Tinubu’s administration claims to safeguard national sovereignty, but
this claim is undermined if citizens are not safe. The controversy surrounding Trump’s comments has drawn global attention to the slow and inconsistent response of the Nigerian government to these mass atrocities.

Past experiences in Rwanda, Syria, and Sudan show that ignoring violence only allows it to grow worse. Nigeria can make progress by reforming its security sector, engaging with communities, and holding abusers accountable. International partners should support these efforts with diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and a united regional response, rather than resorting to threats or selective outrage.

The true strength of the government lies in its ability to protect its citizens. If Nigeria can rebuild trust and address the root causes of its insecurity, it can regain its sovereignty through responsible actions, rather than defiance. If not, the crisis may worsen, and the world may realize too late that inaction costs lives.

About The Author