No to foreign ‘laws’

As consistently maintained by all who believe in Nigeria’s sovereignty, it is unacceptable for the United States of America (USA), or any foreign power, to make laws for this country or compel the repeal of existing ones under whatever guise. Partnership among nations is welcome. Collaboration against insecurity is desirable. Constructive advice is acceptable. But prescription, coercion and legislative overreach from a foreign legislature are not.

The recent advisory compiled by the US House Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs and submitted to the White House crosses that line. Among other recommendations, it called for the abolition of Sharia codes and blasphemy laws in Nigeria, a proposal that amounts to a direct onslaught on the freedom of religion of a significant segment of Nigerian society.

The advisory further urged President Donald Trump’s administration to leverage its position to compel Fulani herdsmen, however that is defined, to disarm, potentially by blocking beef exports to countries such as Ghana, South Africa and Senegal. The use of the name “Fulani” is troubling because it profiles an entire ethnic group. As with any of Nigeria’s over 230 ethnic nationalities, there are criminal elements among them, but calls for disarmament must be comprehensive and not ethnically targeted.

The recommendations also urged the Nigerian government to allow farmers to engage in what was termed “legitimate self-defence” to counter extremist groups and to implement programmes to disrupt terrorist financing networks. This is provocative and a call to anarchy.  The call should have been to the Nigerian government to take charge of the safety and security of the citizens by properly equipping the military, police and other recognised agencies to counter non-state actors.

Additionally, the Congress called on Nigeria to divest from Russian military equipment in favour of American hardware and to counter what it described as Chinese influence, including alleged destabilising practices.

This is also a troubling prescription because the US had on many occasions refused to sell arms to Nigeria. It only does when it deems fit even when Nigeria is in dire strait.

It further urged the withholding of certain US funds pending demonstrable action by Nigeria to stop violence against Christians, while working with international partners to end what were termed atrocities. What about the millions of Muslims that are suffering from worse atrocities? Their lives don’t matter?

It is understandable that many Nigerians would welcome any sincere proposal capable of ending the protracted crises afflicting the country. Insecurity has inflicted pain across communities, irrespective of tribe or faith. Yet many citizens remain unsure what exactly the US seeks to achieve with the divisive rhetoric emerging from Washington.

The proposal to abolish Sharia codes has drawn particularly strong reactions. In a firm rebuttal, the Supreme Council for Shariah in Nigeria (SCSN) rejected the call as misinformed and an attempt to undermine sovereignty. The Council emphasised that Sharia is a comprehensive way of life for Muslims and cannot be relinquished due to external pressure, misinformation or political intimidation. It further noted that Sharia practice in Nigeria is protected by the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and allows adherents to regulate personal and family matters according to their faith.

Nigeria must remain open to positive suggestions from friendly nations in addressing its challenges. However, the executive, legislature and judiciary must stand firm in defending the country’s independence. The US legislature and by extension the US government has no right to legislate for Nigeria.

This is where the Nigerian National Assembly must awaken to its constitutional responsibility. The 109 senators and 360 members of the House of Representatives swore to protect the interests of over 230 million citizens across the 36 states and the Federal Capital Territory. Posterity will judge them harshly if they allow their lawmaking authority to be diluted by external pressure disguised as partnership.

It is also disturbing that the National Assembly has not demonstrated visible, robust knowledge gathering or credible research capable of shaping sustainable solutions to Nigeria’s security crisis. If such work exists, it has not been sufficiently communicated. What citizens mostly hear after tragic attacks are motions of condemnation and little beyond that.

The Americans, by contrast, appear to have conducted their own assessment regardless of how skewed it may be; and have shaped their conclusions accordingly. When a US delegation visited Nigeria, reports indicated a focus on Benue State. Why were they not taken to Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto, Borno, Yobe, Adamawa and other troubled states to illustrate that insecurity is a nationwide emergency? Even if the visitors showed no interest in those areas, Nigeria’s authorities should have insisted in the interest of balance and transparency.

Other nations have demonstrated how to push back against perceived misrepresentation. South Africa offers a recent example, where its leadership firmly rejected what it described as false claims about targeted killings of white farmers. Sovereign states must defend their narratives with facts and clarity.

To its credit, the Nigerian government has issued a rebuttal stating that it has no policy permitting religious violence or targeted attacks. The Minister of Information and National Orientation clarified that Nigeria’s crisis is driven not by religious bias but by terrorism, organised criminality and longstanding communal tensions. That clarification is necessary and welcome.

However, statements alone are insufficient. Nigeria must assert itself more decisively within this so-called collaboration, particularly when aspects of the US advisory portray the Nigerian government as inefficient and its security agencies as ineffective. Such characterisations are damaging and raise legitimate concerns about the direction of this engagement.

There are also practical questions. How would the proposed measures be implemented without American boots on Nigerian soil? Some recommendations suggest direct intervention, especially when accompanied by negative assessments of Nigeria’s institutions. That trajectory must be approached with caution.

This moment calls for introspection by Nigerian authorities. The security crisis is real. The humanitarian toll is undeniable. Citizens’ frustration is palpable. But the solution cannot be the outsourcing of Nigeria’s sovereignty or the legislative functions of its parliament.

Our final word is that no foreign nation can guarantee the security of Nigerian citizens regardless of tribe or faith better than Nigeria itself. Assistance is welcome. Advice is acceptable. But laws for Nigeria must be made in Abuja, not on Capitol Hill.

Nigerians can now invest ₦2.5 million on premium domains and profit about ₦17-₦25 million. All earnings paid in US Dollars. Rather than wonder, click here to find out how it works.

Join Daily Trust WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.