Trump’s Threat: US has energy to intrude, Onoh replies Bashir Ahmaad

Introduction

The interplay between national sovereignty and international human rights obligations has sparked intense debate in Nigeria, particularly regarding the application of Sharia law. This article examines a recent public exchange between Denge.josef Onoh, a former spokesperson for Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, and a statement attributed to Mr. Bashir Ahmaad, a spokesperson for former President Muhammadu Buhari. Onoh’s remarks challenge assertions that Nigeria’s adherence to Sharia law constitutes a sovereign right, emphasizing constitutional limits and the United States’ authority to intervene under the 1998 International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) when human rights are violated.

At the heart of this discourse lies Nigeria’s secular constitution, which explicitly prohibits the state from adopting an official religion (Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution). While Sharia law governs personal matters for Muslims in northern states through judicial courts, its expansion into criminal penalties—such as stoning or amputations—has drawn international condemnation. This analysis explores Onoh’s legal rebuttal, the U.S.’s right to intervene, and the implications of conflating Sharia practices with Nigeria’s constitutional framework.

Analysis

Constitutional Supremacy vs. Sharia Jurisprudence

Nigeria’s constitutional framework, as codified in the 1999 Constitution (as amended), establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land (Section 1(3)). Sharia law, derived from Islamic jurisprudence, is not permitted to supersede or override constitutional provisions. While Sharia courts handle civil disputes under Section 262-264, criminal penalties rooted in Sharia—such as amputation for theft or stoning for adultery—directly conflict with constitutional guarantees of the right to life (Section 33) and human dignity (Section 34). These practices contravene Nigeria’s secular foundation, as affirmed in Article 10, which bars the state from enacting religious laws.

Sharia’s Limited Scope vs. Judicial Overreach

Sharia law’s legitimacy in Nigeria is confined to personal and family matters for consenting Muslims. However, northern states’ adoption of Sharia penal codes in the late 1990s—such as Zamfara’s implementation of “Hisbah” vigilante justice—has encroached into criminal law, violating constitutional mandates. This judicial overreach undermines Nigeria’s pluralism, marginalizing non-Muslims and emboldening groups like Boko Haram, which weaponize religious rhetoric to justify violence. Such laws also breach the Federal Government’s exclusive legislative authority over criminal justice (Section 4(5) of the Constitution).

Political Polarization and National Unity

Mr. Ahmaad’s defense of Sharia sovereignty as non-negotiable risks deepening ethnic and religious fault lines. Nigeria’s diversity demands a unified legal system that respects minority rights. Penal Sharia not only alienates Christian and non-Muslim communities but also empowers extremist groups that exploit religious tensions. For instance, the 2022 blasphemy-related lynching of Deborah Samuel in Katsina State exacerbated interfaith violence, contradicting the Federal Government’s mandate to preserve peace (Section 14 of the Constitution).

U.S. Right to Intervene Under International Law

Onoh’s argument draws on the 1998 IRFA, which permits the U.S. to implement sanctions against nations that violate religious freedom. In 2025, President Trump designated Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) due to escalating religious persecution, including over 1,000 annual deaths from terrorist attacks (e.g., the October 30, 2025, murder of Christian pastor Gabriel Yahaya). The U.S. government may justify cross-border action under IRFA’s provisions, which prioritize protecting persecuted communities over abstract notions of sovereignty.

UN and International Human Rights Frameworks

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Genocide Convention obligate states to prevent mass atrocities. When domestic mechanisms fail—such as Nigeria’s inability to protect citizens from Boko Haram-led violence—the U.S. and UN bodies like the OHCHR can legitimately intervene. Such measures are not “foreign interference” but a fulfillment of Nigeria’s international commitments to safeguard human rights.

Summary

Onoh’s rebuttal underscores that Sharia law’s application in Nigeria is constrained by constitutional limits, national secularism, and international human rights obligations. While personal Sharia governance remains permissible, penal codes violating constitutional rights (Sections 33, 34) are unconstitutional and expose Nigeria to sanctions under U.S. law. The U.S.’s intervention, framed under IRFA and UN conventions, aims to address religious persecution, not dictate domestic governance. Balancing religious freedoms with constitutional integrity remains critical for Nigeria’s stability and international legitimacy.

Key Points

Practical Advice

• Align Sharia with Constitutional Limits: Focus Sharia courts on private matters (marriage, inheritance) as permitted under Sections 262-264.
• Avoid Penal Expansion: Legislators must refrain from enacting Sharia-based criminal penalties that violate constitutional rights (e.g., amputation laws in Zamfara).
• Engage in Dialogue: Stakeholders should prioritize interfaith dialogue to resolve disputes without resorting to violence or extremist interpretations of Sharia.
• Strengthen Human Rights Institutions: Federal agencies should ensure compliance with international conventions, addressing gaps that extremists exploit.

Points of Caution

1. Constitutional Risks: Penal Sharia violates Nigeria’s secular framework and entrenches religious polarization.
2. International Repercussions: Violations risk U.S. sanctions (e.g., visa bans, asset freezes) under IRFA and UN mechanisms.
3. Judicial Overreach: States cannot unilaterally adopt Sharia criminal codes without federal approval, undermining national unity.

Comparison

Sharia Law vs. Constitutional Secularism

Sharia’s role in Nigeria is a constitutional experiment constrained by Article 10’s secular mandate. Penal extensions breach this, creating a theocratic undercurrent antithetical to Nigeria’s pluralistic identity.

U.S. vs. International Legal Frameworks

While the U.S. invokes IRFA to pressure Nigeria, the UN relies on the Genocide Convention to address mass atrocities. Both emphasize human rights protection over sovereignty absolutism.

Penal Sharia vs. Secular Justice

Penal Sharia introduces irreversible punishments that contradict universal human rights norms, as seen in the 2022 Deborah Samuel case, which sparked global condemnation.

Legal Implications

• Constitutional Violation Risks: Penal Sharia codes in northern states conflict with Sections 33 (right to life) and 34 (dignity), risking criminal liability for state actors.
• Federal Interference: States violating constitutional provisions (Section 1(1)) invite federal judicial scrutiny and impeachment moves.
• U.S. Sanctions under IRFA: Nigeria’s designation as a CPC imposes legal and economic penalties, including visa restrictions and aid cuts, unless penal Sharia practices are curtailed.

Conclusion

Onoh’s critique highlights the tension between regional religious practices and Nigeria’s constitutional secular framework. While Sharia serves as a valid legal tradition in civil matters, its expansion into criminal law risks national unity and international disrepute. The U.S.’s IRFA-based intervention is not an affront to sovereignty but a remedy for human rights failures Nigeria has a duty to prevent. Legal reforms must prioritize constitutional supremacy and interfaith harmony to align with global human rights standards.

FAQ