When a group of US lawmakers introduced a new sanctions bill targeting alleged religious freedom violations in Nigeria, the move immediately reignited a familiar and delicate debate on where human right advocacy ends and where foreign overreach begins.

For international relations expert, Khalid Iliyasu Dauda, the proposed Nigeria Religious Freedom and Accountability Act of 2026 reflects a pattern Washington has deployed in applying 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 in a exclusive interview with DAILY POST.

He said the sanction’s “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.”

The bill, introduced by Republican Congressman Riley Moore of West Virginia and co-sponsored by Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey, proposes visa bans and freeze of assets belonging to individuals and groups accused of religious persecution.

Named in the draft 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 enforced under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, with the US Departments of State and Treasury directed to identify those deemed responsible for violations. The legislation also mandates humanitarian intervention in Nigeria’s Middle Belt through “trusted faith-based and non-governmental organisations,” funded by both Washington and Abuja.

The bill goes further to instruct the US Secretary of State to determine whether certain Fulani militias qualify for designation as Foreign Terrorist Organisations which is a step that would carry serious legal and diplomatic consequences.

To Dauda, the controversy surrounding the bill is expected.

He said, “The sovereignty concerns are understandable, especially given Nigeria’s complex internal security challenges,” he said.
“Yet, such actions are increasingly justified under international human rights norms. This initiative sits at the intersection of rights advocacy and geopolitical pressure.”

Despite the tension, Dauda does not foresee a collapse in relations as according to him, “US–Nigeria relations are built on deep strategic foundations, particularly in security collaboration, economic engagement, and regional stability.

“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 in relations.”

DAILY POST recalls that the proposed legislation builds on earlier US actions. In late 2025, President Donald Trump re-designated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” over what Washington described as severe religious freedom violations, particularly against Christian communities. This was followed by the Federal Government’s consistent denial of Christian prosecution, insisting that the violence was driven by banditry and Insurgency rather than religion.

Kwankwaso was among the most vocal critics of the designation. Reacting on his verified X handle, the former governor warned against simplifying Nigeria’s security crisis.

“It is important to emphasize that our country is a sovereign nation whose people face different threats from outlaws across the country,” he said.

“The security challenges we face are complex and multifaceted. They are not limited to one faith or one region.”

He called for cooperation rather than punitive response from Washington.

“The United States should assist Nigeria with advanced technology and intelligence support to combat insecurity instead of resorting to threats,” Kwankwaso said, cautioning that, “Care must be taken not to escalate tensions or deepen divisions within our diverse society.”

Those comments triggered sharp reactions from some US lawmakers backing the bill. In one exchange on X, Moore accused Kwankwaso of complicity in religious persecution, writing, “Governor do you care to comment on your own complicity in the death of Christians? You instituted sharia law. You signed the law that makes so-called blasphemy punishable by death.”

Months later, Kwankwaso’s name has resurfaced in the proposed legislation, fuelling speculation in political and diplomatic circles about how personal exchanges, policy disagreements, and long-standing narratives about Nigeria’s north have shaped the bill.

As at the time of filing this report, the former Kano State Governor is yet to publicly comment on the new development.