…If this is allowed today, no country is safe tomorrow..
Earlier today, Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife, Cilia Flores, were brought before a court in New York from a detention facility in the United States, where they pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. Whatever one thinks of Maduro, this moment should make anyone who believes in international order pause.
The United States has accused Maduro of narco-terrorism, repression of his people, and illegitimacy as Venezuela’s president. Long before this weekend, Washington had placed a $50 million bounty on his head. But let us slow down and ask a simple question: do any of these allegations; serious or otherwise justify the extraterritorial kidnapping of a sitting leader and his wife from a sovereign country? Under international law, the answer is plainly no.
Strip away the emotions, the politics, and the personalities, and what remains is law. International law does not permit the use of force except in two narrow situations: self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, or authorisation by the UN Security Council. Venezuela did not attack the United States, nor was there an imminent threat. There was also no Security Council mandate. That alone renders the strikes and the seizure unlawful.
Some argue that Maduro is oppressive or illegitimate. Even if one accepts that argument, it still changes nothing legally. International law does not allow states to decide who governs another country by force. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter is explicit about non-intervention. You can believe Maduro should not be in office and still recognise that forcibly removing him is illegal. Law does not bend to convenience.
Others have leaned on the claim that Maduro fuels drug trafficking into the United States. That argument may sound persuasive to domestic audiences, but it has no standing in international law. There is no such thing as a lawful cross-border “war on drugs” that permits invasion, bombing, or kidnapping. Criminal conduct; real or alleged does not entitle one state to militarily assault another.
Then there is the familiar refrain of human rights. While the protection of human rights is important, unilateral humanitarian intervention is not generally recognised as lawful. States cannot enforce human rights in other countries by force simply because they say the cause is just. If that were allowed, international order would collapse into selective morality enforced by missiles.
And yes, there is oil. Venezuela has plenty of it. President Trump’s own remarks about sending American oil companies to “fix infrastructure” and “start making money” only deepen the illegality. Economic or strategic interests have never been a lawful justification for the use of force. If anything, they make the violation more obvious.
The act itself; the seizure of Maduro and his wife is indefensible under international law. You cannot simply enter another country and arrest its leaders without consent or UN authorisation. That is not law enforcement; it is abduction. It is kidnapping and it is banditry. It also violates international human rights law, particularly the prohibition against arbitrary detention. Calling it something else does not change what it is.
Today, the streets of Caracas filled with protests. What is striking is that even opposition voices reportedly joined in condemning the act, describing it as a crime against Venezuela’s sovereignty. That should tell us something. This is no longer about loving or hating Maduro; it is about resisting a dangerous precedent.
Can Maduro be tried in New York? Again, the answer is no. If he remains president, he enjoys personal immunity from prosecution before foreign courts. Even claims of illegitimacy do not strip a sitting leader of immunity, as courts in Europe have affirmed in similar cases involving Syria. If one argues that Maduro ceased to be president upon capture, Venezuelan constitutional provisions; particularly Articles 233 and 234 clearly outline when and how a president leaves office. None of those conditions were met therefore, he remains the president of Venezuela.
President Trump’s declaration that the United States will “govern Venezuela” for a period before installing an indigenous government belongs more to the colonial era than modern international law. Trusteeships and mandates ended decades ago. There is no legal basis today for one state to administer another, especially by force and without international approval.
The reality is that America knows the consequences will be limited to condemnation. The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over acts of aggression committed by it. Power, once again, shields itself.
As we await the hearing scheduled for 17 January, the international community faces a test. Silence now would mean acceptance later. If international law is to mean anything, it must apply even when inconvenient especially then. The unconditional release of President Maduro and his wife is not an endorsement of his politics; it is a defence of a legal order that protects all states, big or small, strong or weak.
Because once the rules collapse, no one is truly safe.
ONOGWU Muhammed, Esq.
