Abuja — The introduction of a new sanctions bill by a group of United States lawmakers targeting alleged religious freedom violations in Nigeria has reignited debate over the fine line between human rights advocacy and foreign interference.
The proposed Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026, introduced by Republican Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia and co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, seeks to impose visa bans and asset freezes on individuals and groups accused of religious persecution.
Among those named in the draft legislation are former Kano State Governor Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, Fulani-ethnic nomadic militias, the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN), and Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore. The sanctions would be implemented under the US Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, empowering the Departments of State and Treasury to identify and penalize alleged violators.
The bill also mandates humanitarian intervention in Nigeria’s Middle Belt through “trusted faith-based and non-governmental organisations,” funded jointly by Washington and Abuja. Additionally, it directs the US Secretary of State to determine whether certain Fulani militias qualify for designation as Foreign Terrorist Organisations — a move that could carry significant diplomatic and legal implications.
Speaking exclusively to DAILY POST, international relations expert Khalid Iliyasu Dauda described the legislation as consistent with Washington’s longstanding approach of applying targeted pressure without direct confrontation.
“The proposed legislation mirrors a well-established US strategy of using targeted sanctions to influence elite behaviour and signal concern over religious violence,” said Dauda, a lecturer at Skyline University.
He cautioned, however, that the effectiveness of such measures would depend on due process and credible evidence.
“The sanctions’ credibility will depend on strong evidence, fair targeting, and genuine engagement with Nigerian authorities. Without these, it risks being more symbolic than an effective accountability mechanism,” he added.
Balancing Sovereignty and Human Rights
The bill builds on earlier US actions. In late 2025, President Donald Trump re-designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern,” citing severe religious freedom violations, particularly against Christian communities. The Nigerian government has consistently rejected that characterization, maintaining that insecurity in the country is driven by banditry and insurgency rather than religious persecution.
Kwankwaso was among the prominent voices challenging Washington’s position. In a post on his verified X account, he emphasized the complexity of Nigeria’s security landscape.
“Our country is a sovereign nation whose people face different threats from outlaws across the country,” he wrote.
“The security challenges we face are complex and multifaceted. They are not limited to one faith or one region.”
He urged the United States to prioritize cooperation over punitive measures.
“The United States should assist Nigeria with advanced technology and intelligence support to combat insecurity instead of resorting to threats,” Kwankwaso stated, warning against actions that could deepen divisions within Nigeria’s diverse society.
His remarks drew sharp criticism from Congressman Moore, who accused him in a public exchange of complicity in religious persecution and referenced Kano State’s adoption of Sharia law.
Strategic Ties Unlikely to Collapse
Despite the tension, Dauda does not anticipate a breakdown in US–Nigeria relations.
“US–Nigeria relations are built on deep strategic foundations, particularly in security collaboration, economic engagement, and regional stability,” he said.
“What is more likely is a shift toward a more conditional and pragmatic partnership, characterised by closer scrutiny and periodic tensions rather than a breakdown.”
As of the time of filing this report, Kwankwaso has not publicly commented on his inclusion in the proposed legislation.
The unfolding debate underscores the growing complexity of US–Nigeria relations, where human rights concerns, domestic politics, and geopolitical calculations increasingly intersect.
Comments