Global experts explain on Inside Sources what US capture of Maduro means for Nigeria

The controversial arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces has ignited fierce global debate over the legality and broader implications of Washington’s actions — with Nigerian security and international law experts warning that the episode underscores growing unilateralism by the US and signals urgent lessons for Nigeria’s own security posture. On Inside […]

The controversial arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces has ignited fierce global debate over the legality and broader implications of Washington’s actions — with Nigerian security and international law experts warning that the episode underscores growing unilateralism by the US and signals urgent lessons for Nigeria’s own security posture.

On Inside Sources with Laolu Akande on Channels TV, two leading Nigerian voices — Professor Ademola Abass, a renowned international law scholar, and Ambassador Lawrence Obisakin, former Nigerian Ambassador to the Republic of Benin — weighed in on the fallout from the military operation that saw U.S. forces capture Maduro in Caracas and transport him to the United States. Their insights highlight deep concerns about unilateral use of force, erosion of international norms, and what these developments mean for African states such as Nigeria.

Professor Abass did not mince words in his assessment of the U.S. intervention. “What the US did [in the case of Maduro’s arrest] was a pure act of unilateralism. The unilateral use of force that was blatantly illegal under international law. No question about that.”

His comments echo the widespread criticism from international legal experts who argue that the U.S. operation lacked authorization from the United Nations Security Council and violated core principles of the UN Charter — including sovereign equality and the prohibition on use of force without mandate or self-defence justification.

“This raises serious questions about the future of the rules-based international order,” Professor Abass continued, noting that when powerful countries bypass multilateral mechanisms, they risk normalising disregard for established norms. “The only worry I have for this in the implications for this on Nigeria is not about whether Trump is coming to capture our President. My worry is whether as a country, we are reading what is happening globally in the way it should be read and tell ourselves that it is high time we began to take some actions in terms of our internal security,” he said.

His concerns are grounded in the reality that Nigeria — while not facing imminent external military threat — operates in a world where external powers increasingly assert military options. The capture of a sitting head of state without international mandate, Professor Abass suggested, should prompt Nigerian policymakers to reassess national security frameworks, diplomatic strategies, and preparedness for unconventional threats.

Ambassador Lawrence Obisakin offered a perspective shaped by decades of diplomatic engagement. “What has happened, to those who are not in the diplomacy or international relations, it may be surprising. But, to us, it is not surprising. It has happened before. The US has kidnapped a sitting president before. They even caged him.”

His pointed reference to historical U.S. interventions — such as the 1989 capture of Panama’s General Manuel Noriega — serves as a reminder that great powers have at times exercised extraterritorial use of force against foreign leaders when it suited their strategic interests.
Ambassador Obisakin’s remarks underscore the need for Nigeria’s strategic community and diplomatic corps to cultivate deeper understanding of global power practices, norms of state sovereignty, and how great power competition can manifest in actions with wider implications beyond bilateral contexts.

The U.S. military action — code-named Operation Absolute Resolve in some reports — has drawn rebukes from many quarters. International organisations warned the move undermines global security norms; the UN Secretary-General called it a “dangerous precedent” that could destabilise regional peace.

Amnesty International also criticised the operation as a likely violation of international law, noting that the capture of Maduro and his wife by a permanent member of the UN Security Council weakens the rules-based global system and invites potential copy-cat unilateral actions.
For Nigeria, which plays leadership roles in both African Union and United Nations forums, such global reactions are more than academic.

They signal how shifts in great-power conduct — especially by traditional security guarantors — can challenge smaller states’ abilities to uphold sovereignty norms, protect citizens abroad, and negotiate stability in international crises.

Analysts suggest that Nigeria’s response to the Maduro case should not only be diplomatic but strategic. The country must strengthen its internal security apparatus, invest in understanding global power shifts, and reinforce its commitment to international law. As Professor Abass cautioned, the issue is less about fear of similar external incursions and more about reading and adapting to a world where the rules that once governed interstate conduct risk being supplanted by raw power plays.

In Ambassador Obisakin’s words, familiarity with these patterns is essential for Nigerian policymakers and citizens alike — not merely as observers, but as active participants in shaping the continent’s diplomatic and security posture.

The Maduro arrest episode, they agree, should be a wake-up call for Nigeria: to sharpen both its internal security readiness and its engagement with a world where unilateral military actions by powerful states may no longer be the exception but an emerging norm.