By Charles Pemu 
LAGOS, Nigeria — Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) have unanimously condemned the threat by former United States President Donald Trump to deploy American troops to Nigeria over alleged killings of Christians, labeling any such unilateral action a gross violation of international law and an “act of aggression.”
The diplomatic and legal firestorm erupted after President Trump designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” and followed up with a stark warning on Saturday, November 1: “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. 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.”
International Law Shields Nigeria’s Sovereignty
Constitutional lawyer, Professor Itse Sagay (SAN), dismissed the threat as legally untenable, stating that any foreign military intervention without the consent of the Nigerian government would constitute a capital offense in international law.
“They can only move in with the consent of our government. They can’t move in by themselves. If they do, it will amount to an act of aggression, which is a capital offence in international law,” Sagay warned.
This stance was echoed by Adedayo Adedeji (SAN), who emphasized the fundamental right of every sovereign state to independence and territorial control, free from external dictation. While acknowledging the necessity of global counterterrorism cooperation, Adedeji maintained that a unilateral U.S. military action would be completely unacceptable. Adedeji also actively disputed the core premise of the threat, stating, “Contrary to the news making the rounds, I don’t think we have anything like Christian genocide in Nigeria.”
Call for Domestic Resolution, Caution on Intervention
However, Chief Mike Ahamba (SAN) offered a note of caution, describing the alleged killings as deeply troubling. While affirming that any intervention must be invited by Nigeria—warning that an uninvited entry amounts to an invasion—he suggested that a stronger nation could be compelled to step in if the Nigerian government fails to halt the bloodshed. Ahamba drew a historical parallel, stating, “If they don’t [invite], and they know that something wrong is happening, what happened in Iraq can happen.”
Meanwhile, Lagos-based lawyer Jiti Ogunye criticized Trump’s threat as hypocritical and baseless, arguing it directly contradicts the U.S. President’s isolationist “America First” ideology. Ogunye questioned the humanitarian motives, suggesting the renewed interest might be tied to economic interests, noting, “It’s not far-fetched that if such wishes were achieved, Nigeria’s oil, lithium, and gold could be taken to pay for the so-called protection.”
The legal experts ultimately urged the President Tinubu administration to focus inward and resolve the nation’s protracted internal security challenges to forestall any justification for foreign interference.
Ogunye specifically called for a robust approach to the recurring farmer-herder conflicts, particularly in the Middle Belt, demanding an end to the tradition of roaming cattle and urging respect for established state boundaries.
“Let Tinubu’s administration sort out the internal security situation. In Benue and Plateau, go there and address the crisis… The Usman Dan Fodio era is over, the Oyo Empire is over. Respect those boundaries,” Ogunye concluded.