US Airstrikes in Sokoto and the Limits of International Law

The reported United States airstrikes in parts of Sokoto State raise serious questions under international law, questions that cannot be dismissed by official assurances unsupported by evidence. At the heart of the controversy is not merely whether armed groups were targeted, but whether the operation complied with the foundational legal principles governing the use of force, state sovereignty, and civilian protection.

International law is clear on one central point. The use of force by one state on the territory of another is prohibited except in narrowly defined circumstances. These include authorization by the United Nations Security Council, a valid claim of self defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or the express consent of the territorial state. Any operation falling outside these conditions risks being unlawful, regardless of the stated objective.

In the case of the Sokoto airstrikes, uncertainty surrounds the issue of consent. President Donald Trump publicly announced the operation on social media, portraying it as a decisive American action against terrorist elements. Notably absent from that statement was any reference to collaboration with, or authorization from, the Nigerian government. This omission matters. In matters of international law, silence is not neutral. When consent exists, states usually assert it clearly to avoid legal ambiguity. Nigeria’s subsequent claim that it was aware of or involved in the operation has not been accompanied by verifiable proof, such as a joint statement, operational framework, or evidence of prior notification. This gap fuels doubt and invites speculation.

The choice of location further complicates the legal and factual narrative. Sokoto State is not widely regarded as a primary operational base for Boko Haram or the Islamic State West Africa Province, whose entrenched strongholds are historically located in the North East, particularly in Borno and surrounding areas. While criminal armed groups may operate across regions, international law requires that the use of force be necessary and proportionate to a concrete and identifiable threat. Striking an area with comparatively limited presence of these groups, while long established centres of insurgency remain untouched, raises legitimate questions about intelligence reliability and operational justification.

There is also the troubling framing of the operation as one aimed at protecting Christians. Statements attributed to American officials suggest that the strikes were motivated by claims that terrorists were killing Christians in particular. This narrative is deeply problematic. The reality, well documented by Nigerian and international observers, is that insurgent violence in Nigeria has claimed the lives of both Muslims and Christians. To frame the conflict along religious lines is not only factually inaccurate but legally dangerous. International humanitarian law is built on the principle of distinction, not on religious identity. Any suggestion that force is deployed selectively to protect one religious group undermines the obligation of neutrality and risks inflaming sectarian tensions.

From a legal standpoint, the absence of transparent evidence of Nigerian consent, the questionable choice of target area, and the religious framing of justification together create fertile ground for conspiracy theories. Such theories thrive where information is incomplete and narratives are inconsistent. While conspiracy itself is not a legal category, its emergence signals a failure of accountability and communication, both of which are essential in lawful military operations.

Equally important is the issue of civilian harm. Even if the intended targets were armed groups, international humanitarian law demands precaution, proportionality, and post strike assessment. Reports of explosives and debris landing on farmlands and residential areas, if accurate, raise concerns about whether these obligations were fully observed. Without transparent investigation and disclosure, assurances of precision remain assertions rather than proof.

Ultimately, the rule of law does not yield to political convenience or security urgency. If Nigeria consented to the operation, that consent must be demonstrable. If the operation was conducted unilaterally, it represents a troubling precedent that weakens the principle of sovereignty, particularly for states in the Global South. And if the justification rests on a selective or misleading narrative of victimhood, it undermines the universality that international law is meant to protect.

The fight against terrorism is legitimate. The manner in which that fight is conducted is what determines its legality. Until clarity replaces ambiguity, the Sokoto airstrikes will remain not only a security issue, but a legal one, raising questions that neither rhetoric nor delayed explanations can easily resolve.