The bill would compel the Secretary of State to designate the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) and to designate Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa as Entities of Particular Concern (EPC). It also requires the President to impose sanctions described in Executive Order 13818 on Nigerian individuals identified in a forthcoming annual State Department report.
The initial report would cover the 10 years prior to enactment, with subsequent reports spanning the period since the last submission. The act furthermore expands the International Religious Freedom Act framework with clear designation and waiver mechanics, and it revises definitional language to ensure consistent usage.
At a Glance
What It Does
Designates Nigeria as a CPC and Boko Haram/ISIS-WA as EPCs, and establishes a sanctions framework tied to a State Department report listing individuals who promote blasphemy laws or tolerate violence tied to religious justifications.
Who It Affects
Nigerian federal officials, state governors, judges, and law enforcement authorities implicated in enforcing or tolerating blasphemy laws; U.S. agencies (State Department) executing sanctions and reporting to Congress.
Why It Matters
Sets up a formal accountability track for religious freedom violations in Nigeria, leveraging CPC/EPC designations to spur reform and enable targeted sanctions, while embedding annual congressional oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a formal framework to hold Nigerian actors accountable for religious freedom violations. It requires the Secretary of State to designate Nigeria as a CPC and Boko Haram and ISIS-West Africa as EPCs under the International Religious Freedom Act.
Once designated, the President must apply sanctions described in EO 13818 to Nigerians named in a forthcoming annual report from the State Department.
The first required report covers the 10 years prior to enactment, and each later report covers the period since the previous submission. The lists include Nigerian federal officials or governors who promoted or enforced blasphemy laws or who tolerated violence by non-state actors citing religious justifications, as well as judges and law enforcement officials who enforced such laws.
The report may be unclassified with a classified annex if needed. The act also makes technical corrections to the IRF Act and clarifies who Congress must include in oversight, while defining key terms used throughout the bill.In practice, this bill ties domestic religious freedom concerns to international accountability mechanisms.
The designation and subsequent sanctions would rely on annual reporting to Congress, with waiver options to prevent designation if conditions in Nigeria shift (e.g., no ongoing enforcement of blasphemy laws). The net effect is a structured push for reform through international designation and targeted penalties, backed by a regular reporting cadence to lawmakers.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill designates Nigeria as a CPC and Boko Haram/ISIS-WA as EPCs under the IRF Act.
It requires sanctions to be imposed on individuals named in a State Department report, via EO 13818.
An initial report is due within 90 days of enactment and then annually, listing officials tied to blasphemy laws or violence.
Waivers exist if the Nigerian government stops enforcing blasphemy laws or if the designated entities are not operating, respectively.
It includes a technical correction to the IRF Act and defines core terms like “Nigerian blasphemy laws.”.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section designates the act’s official name, the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025, establishing its identity for citation and reference in legal and policy discussions.
Imposition of Sanctions
The President must apply sanctions described in EO 13818 to persons identified in the annual State Department report. The first report is due 90 days after enactment; subsequent reports are submitted annually. Reports are required to be unclassified, though a classified annex may be included if appropriate.
Designations and Amendments Related to the IRF Act
This section requires the Secretary of State to designate Nigeria as a CPC and Boko Haram/ISIS‑West Africa as EPCs for egregious violations of religious freedom. It also provides waiver authorities: CPC designations may be waived if Nigeria’s government is not enforcing blasphemy laws and is not operating in blasphemy-law enforcement; EPC waivers apply if the entity is not currently operating. A technical correction adjusts terminology in the IRF Act to reflect standard phrasing.
Definitions
Defines key terms used in the bill, including “appropriate congressional committees,” “Boko Haram,” “ISIS-West Africa,” “Nigerian blasphemy laws,” and “person,” and clarifies the scope of who may be designated or affected by the sanctions regime.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Nigerian civil society organizations advocating for religious freedom that can leverage international scrutiny to push reforms
- Nigerian individuals and communities harmed by blasphemy-law enforcement who gain visibility and potential protections through targeted accountability
- International human rights organizations and foreign policy analysts who monitor religious freedom abuses
- U.S. policymakers and the State Department, through enhanced oversight and a structured sanctioning mechanism
- Members of the U.S. Congress and relevant committees who receive regular, codified reporting on religious freedom issues
Who Bears the Cost
- Nigerian government officials at federal and subnational levels implicated in enforcing blasphemy laws who face sanctions
- Judicial and law enforcement personnel involved in prosecutions under blasphemy laws
- U.S. government agencies (e.g., State Department) that implement reporting and sanctioning requirements
- U.S. financial institutions and international banks that process sanctions-related freezes and compliance checks
- Nigerian and international businesses that could be affected by sanctioned individuals’ financial restrictions
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing robust international pressure for religious freedom with the risk of extraterritorial sanctions that could complicate Nigeria’s internal politics and security situation, while maintaining credible, timely reporting and avoiding unilateral mislabeling or overreach.
The bill creates a structured accountability path centered on CPC/EPC designations and targeted sanctions. While the annual reporting requirement enhances transparency and oversight, it also raises questions about the accuracy and timeliness of designations given Nigeria’s complex religious landscape and varying enforcement practices.
The waiver provisions introduce discretion that could blunt immediate designation in certain scenarios, which may dilute accountability if not applied rigorously. The interaction with the IRF Act’s broader framework could also complicate existing U.S. policy objectives in the region if not carefully coordinated with Nigeria’s security and governance dynamics.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.