By Engr. Mohammed Nur Khalil
Prologue: THE ABDICATION OF PATRIOTISM
In the span of a few weeks, the Nigerian state has been subjected to two of the most grievous assaults on its sovereignty—not by foreign armies, but by its own citizens who have sworn oaths to protect it. First, it was the revelation that Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, the newly appointed Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), authored a 2020 legal brief calling for international military intervention in Nigeria. Now, we witness Kabiru Turaki, SAN, a former Minister and self-proclaimed National Chairman of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), publicly begging a foreign president to “save democracy” in Nigeria.
These are not coincidences. They are symptoms of a virulent strain of political desperation and seditious entitlement that has festered for too long. When personal ambition eclipses national loyalty, the result is the treasonous spectacle we have just witnessed. Turaki’s statement is not merely an unpatriotic gaffe; it is a calculated act of sedition that, if left unpunished, will embolden others and irrevocably weaken the foundations of our Republic.
THE TURAKI AFFRONT: ANATOMY OF A TREASONABLE UTTERANCE
Let us be unequivocal: the convention that produced Kabiru Turaki is a legal nullity. As a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, he is not ignorant of the rulings of the Federal High Court in Abuja on October 31, 2025, and the subsequent order in the suit filed by Sule Lamido, which suspended the very convention he now uses to claim legitimacy. His decision to ignore these courts is the first act of impunity, revealing a man who respects no authority but his own ambition.
However, his subsequent public statements transcend impunity and enter the realm of high treason. Deconstructing his plea to “President Trump” and “other developed nations” reveals a multi-layered assault on the state:
A Direct Invitation for Foreign Intervention: By calling on foreign powers to “save Nigeria,” Turaki committed a blatant act contrary to Section 1(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), which affirms that “Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” His appeal is an explicit rejection of this constitutional order and an invitation for external forces to supplant it.
Endorsement of a Malicious and Seditious Falsehood: His claim that “what is at stake is not just genocide against Nigerian Christians” is not a mere political statement. It is a deliberate amplification of the same dangerous, baseless narrative that was peddled in the 2020 ICON report authored by Prof. Amupitan. This narrative, which has been weaponized internationally to justify threats against Nigeria, is now being echoed by a senior Nigerian political figure. This lends it false credibility and directly violates Sections 50 and 51 of the Criminal Code Act, which criminalize seditious publications and utterances intended to bring the government into hatred or contempt or promote feelings of ill-will and hostility among different segments of the population.
Gross Misconduct Prejudicial to State Security: As a former Minister of the Federal Republic, Turaki owes a fiduciary duty to the state. His actions constitute gross misconduct prejudicial to the security and interest of Nigeria.
He has provided fodder for international actors with questionable motives and exacerbated domestic religious tensions, all for the sake of gaining an illegitimate party position.
A DANGEROUS PATTERN: THE AMUPITAN PRECEDENT
To view Turaki’s actions in isolation is to miss the gravity of the moment. They must be seen as part of a coordinated—though perhaps not conspiratorial—pattern of sedition. The case of Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, SAN, is a stark and directly parallel precedent.
As I detailed in my public article, “A Moral Quandary: Can Prof. Amupitan’s Past Coexist with INEC’s Impartial Future?”, Prof. Amupitan, in his capacity as a SAN, authored a legal brief titled “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria and the Implications for the International Community.” In that document, he:
Labelled Nigeria a “genocidal state.”
Explicitly called for “military intervention by the UN, the African Union (AU), or ECOWAS forces as a last resort.”
The parallels with Turaki’s statements are chilling. Both are Senior Advocates of Nigeria, a title that should be synonymous with the highest respect for the rule of law. Both have held positions of public trust. Both have now used their platforms to call for or encourage foreign intervention in Nigeria’s sovereign affairs based on the same unsubstantiated genocide narrative.
The fundamental question this pattern raises is terrifying: Have we created a class of elite citizens who believe they are above the laws of sedition and treason? Are the consequences for such egregious breaches of national trust only for the common man?
The simultaneous emergence of these two cases presents the Tinubu administration and the judiciary with a historic test. Failure to act decisively will be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of such seditious conduct.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK: BEYOND FREE SPEECH TO SEDITION AND TREASON
Apologists will inevitably hide behind the veil of “freedom of expression.” This is a deliberate and dangerous misdirection.
The right to free speech, enshrined in Section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, is not absolute. It is rightly limited by laws that protect national security, public order, and the sovereignty of the state.
The utterances of both Turaki and Amupitan fall squarely within the ambit of existing laws that protect the state from internal subversion:
Criminal Code Act, Sections 50 & 51: These sections define sedition and prescribe punishment for any person who, inter alia, speaks words with the intention of bringing the President or Government into hatred or contempt, or exciting disaffection against them. Turaki’s global press conference, calling the government a threat to democracy and inviting its overthrow by foreign powers, is a textbook example of a seditious act.
Treason and Treasonable Felony: While proving treason requires a higher threshold, Turaki’s actions border on treasonable felony. His public appeal to a foreign power to intervene in Nigeria’s domestic affairs, thereby undermining its constitutional authority, can be construed as an overt act aimed at overthrowing the sovereignty of the state.
Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act 2024: His statements, broadcast globally, can be interpreted as the transmission of communication with the intent to bully, threaten, or harass the Nigerian state and its people, contributing to national instability.
The legal tools are there. What has been lacking is the political will to deploy them against the high and mighty. The prosecution of individuals for hate speech must be applied without fear or favour, especially when the perpetrators are SANs and former ministers.
A FAILURE OF INSTITUTIONS: VETTING, ACCOUNTABILITY AND THE RULE OF LAW
This twin crisis exposes catastrophic failures in our institutional frameworks.
The Vetting Failure: As I asked in my article on Prof. Amupitan: how did the State Security Services (SSS) fail to unearth a document as seditious as the 2020 ICON report during his vetting for the INEC chairmanship? This was not a hidden document; it was published and widely circulated by international actors. This failure is unforgivable, and the State Security Service must be held accountable. A system that cannot identify such glaring red flags for one of the most sensitive offices in the land is a system in crisis.
The Impunity of the Political Class: Turaki’s actions are a direct product of a political culture where impunity is rewarded and national interest is routinely sacrificed at the altar of personal ambition. His brazen appeal to a foreign power is not an anomaly but a predictable outcome of a system that has long tolerated the subordination of national sovereignty for political gain. This ethos is vividly encapsulated by the ongoing crisis within his own party, where factions engage in open confrontation and demonstrate a flagrant disregard for court orders, operating on the entrenched belief that the law is a tool to be manipulated rather than a foundation to be respected.
The Silence of the Bar: The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) has been conspicuously quiet. When Senior Advocates—who are supposed to be custodians of the law—become its most flagrant violators, the NBA has a duty to speak and act. Their silence is a dereliction of duty that undermines the entire legal profession.
A CLARION CALL FOR URGENT AND DECISIVE ACTION
This is not a moment for mere condemnation. It is a moment for decisive, legal, and constitutional action to salvage what remains of our national dignity and territorial integrity. Therefore, I make the following calls:
To the Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi, SAN:
You must, as a matter of utmost national urgency, initiate immediate criminal proceedings against Kabiru Turaki for sedition and related offences. His statement is a clear and present danger to national security. A failure to prosecute will set a dangerous precedent that such treasonous conduct is permissible. Parallelly, you must review the appointment of Prof. Amupitan with the seriousness it demands, as outlined in my previous correspondence. The nation cannot have two senior members of the legal profession simultaneously undermining its sovereignty with impunity.
To the National Assembly:
The legislature must awake from its slumber. It should commence investigations into these acts of sedition. It should also summon the State Security Services to explain the profound lapses in the vetting process for sensitive public appointments. Oversight must be more than a ceremonial function.
To the PDP Leadership:
The mainstream leadership of the PDP must immediately and publicly repudiate Kabiru Turaki and his illegitimate faction. Their continued silence is complicity. A party that has produced three presidents must not be destroyed from within by a man so desperate for a title that he would sell the nation’s sovereignty to acquire it.
To the Nigerian People:
We must rise as one to condemn this betrayal. We must demand accountability from our leaders. Our sovereignty is not negotiable. Our democracy, however imperfect, is ours to fix. We must not allow desperate politicians to auction it to the highest foreign bidder.
The resilience and pride of Nigerians are our greatest assets; we must deploy them now in defence of our nation.
CONCLUSION: A SOVEREIGN NIGERIA OR A FAILED STATE? THE CHOICE IS NOW
The cases of Amupitan and Turaki are a wake-up call. They represent a fork in the road for Nigeria. Down one path lies accountability, the rule of law, and the fierce defence of our sovereignty.
Down the other lies impunity, the normalization of sedition, and the gradual ceding of our national destiny to external forces and internal saboteurs.
We have seen the devastating impact of the “genocide” lie on the international stage, culminating in threats from a foreign power. We cannot now allow that same lie to be used as a weapon in our domestic political wars. The fire that Turaki and Amupitan have played with has the potential to consume us all.
The time for gentle admonishments is over. The era of accountability must begin now. Kabiru Turaki must be made a stark example. He should face full legal prosecution. His case must serve as a warning to all who would consider trading our national security for a political mess of pottage.
For the sake of our unity, for the future of our democracy, and for the love of our country, we must say with one voice: Enough is Enough. Our sovereignty is not for sale.
_Engr. Mohammed Nur Khalil is a seasoned engineer, public policy analyst, and former gubernatorial candidate. He is the author of several policy papers on national security and governance, including “Trump’s Threat to Nigeria: If I Were President Bola Ahmed Tinubu” and “A Moral Quandary: Can Prof. Amupitan’s Past Coexist with INEC’s Impartial Future?”_
