Opinion

By Zayyad I. Muhammad 

1. Immediate Actions: Dispatch a high-level delegation to Washington: President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu should immediately send a high-powered delegation composed of respected Nigerian statesmen, business leaders, and senior government officials to engage with U.S. authorities.

The team should include former President Olusegun Obasanjo, former Head of State General Abdulsalami Abubakar, Chief Bola Ajibola, business mogul Aliko Dangote, Rev. Hassan Matthew Kukah, and the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), Most Rev. Dr Daniel Okoh, His Eminence Sultan of Sokoto, representatives of Religious groups, NGO, etc.

From the government side, the delegation should include the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary to the Government of the Federation, and the Governors of Benue,  Plateau, Niger, Katsina, Kaduna, Zamfara, Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States, given the security relevance of their regions.

2. Re-engage the U.S. Mission in Nigeria: The Presidency should task the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other well-placed Nigerians with deepening communication with the U.S. Mission in Abuja and the Consulate in Lagos to strengthen diplomatic rapport, address misperceptions, and align mutual strategic interests.

3. Reach out to U.S. allies and partners: Nigeria should actively engage with other influential U.S. allies across Europe, the Middle East, and Asia to rally broader international support for Nigeria’s security and development agenda.

3. Seek U.S. assistance in defence cooperation: President Tinubu should formally request more support from the Donald J. Trump administration in providing modern weapons, intelligence-sharing technology, and counter-insurgency training to bolster Nigeria’s fight against terrorism and violent extremism.

4. Immediate appointment of ambassadors: Nigeria’s diplomatic missions have remained without substantive ambassadors for too long. Swift appointments of competent, credible, and globally respected diplomats will help restore Nigeria’s voice and visibility on the international stage.

5. The Minister Yusuf Tuggar should be reassigned to another portfolio, and a new Minister of Foreign Affairs, preferably one with strong international connections and more diplomatic weight, should be appointed. This will send a clear signal that Nigeria is repositioning its foreign policy and engagement strategy.

6. Launch a global public relations drive: Nigeria must embark on a robust, well-coordinated international PR campaign to reshape global perception. This should highlight the Tinubu administration’s economic reforms, anti-corruption measures, and counter-terrorism efforts, while showcasing Nigeria as a stable, investment-friendly democracy that protects all faiths and ethnicities

7. On the Security and Communication Front: The office of the National Security Adviser and the high military command are doing well; thus, to further boost the effort, they should further re-align the war against insurgency and banditry. The battle against bandits, terrorists, and other insurgent groups must be comprehensively restructured. This includes better coordination among the armed forces, improved intelligence gathering, community-based security initiatives, and enhanced welfare for frontline troops. A unified national security strategy will yield faster and more sustainable results.

8. Strengthen media visibility of Nigeria’s counter-terrorism efforts: Nigeria’s efforts in the fight against terror are often underreported or misrepresented internationally. There should be massive, transparent media coverage, both traditional and digital, to showcase the government’s ongoing efforts, victories, and human stories of resilience. This will help counter misinformation, boost public morale, and attract global understanding and support.

Zayyad I. Muhammad writes from Abuja via zaymohd@yahoo.com.

By Malam Ibrahym El-Caleel

Foreign invaders such as the US, NATO and Russia strike capital cities first, basically to break command and control. This creates a leadership crisis in the country, and this is how armed militia from different parts of the country begin to get stronger. The country’s borders become porous, everything passes through. This effectively means you’d have a full scale war and an insurgency going on. Even after the war when the foreign invader leaves, your insurgency will be there staring into your eyes. Go and take learnings from Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well, after attacking the nation’s capital, the next thing foreign invaders do is to begin working on their supposed objectives of invading. God forbid they invade Nigeria, but after Abuja, they will be heading to the purported sites of “Christian genocide” to begin the work of “saving Christians”. It is not Kano, or Jigawa or Gombe. It is North-Central, especially states like Plateau and Benue, then perhaps Southern Kaduna. These are the areas constantly flashed in the media, with a claim of Muslims in Nigeria killing Christians, when everyone knows what’s happening there!

Now, the attackers in these locations do not have designated addresses. They are bandits, killer herdsmen, kidnappers and whatnot. They are criminals who live in the bushes and always moving from one area to another. If the US will be able to clinically target them and annihilate them, then this is a very good one. Nigeria will be extremely grateful for this act of charity done from the American taxpayers’ money. Both Nigerian Muslims and Christians will be happy and grateful that the US came and annihilated these bloodthirsty beasts with clinical precision.

However, based on clear antecedents, foreign invaders don’t do this type of job free and with clinical precision. It costs a nation so much to launch an invasion, therefore nobody goes to war “free”. Secondly, interventions like this always come with collateral damage. The undisclosed costs and the collateral damage is what every Nigerian with a functional brain thinks about and shivers. Once you have a functional brain, this uncertainty is what makes you not want US presence on Nigerian soil, whether you are Muslim or Christian.

Now, back to the North-Central. The first collateral damage in Benue and Plateau States is most likely going to have more Christian victims themselves, than Muslim victims. The simple reason is because we all know that Christian population in these states is more than the Muslim population, and this is why both the governor and deputy governor in each of these states are Christian. As a Christian who is cheering Savior Trump, if you are sure that the US will be able to isolate Christian populations from the collateral damage in a densely Christian populated state, then you are good to go with your celebration.

On the flip side, the cost of the war is what I don’t understand. The US is known for fetching available mineral resources after striking nations. I do not know how they plan to tap into Nigeria’s resources because the most liquid resources are located in the South-South (Niger-Delta) region, which is far away from the sites of the so-called “Christian genocide”.

Already, a US politician and advisor of Donald Trump, named Dr Walid Phares posted earlier today that he is advising Donald Trump to establish an emergency base in Port Harcourt, in order to “deter Boko Haram and other jihadist” (his words). He posted this through his handle @WalidPhares on X (formerly, Twitter), see screenshot below.

I am not interested in the conspiracy theories since there must be a background story to the choice of Port Harcourt as a military base. Port Harcourt is considered to be the commercial center of the Nigerian oil industry. It has vast reserves of oil and natural gas, and produces more than 50% of the Nigerian crude oil and gas. It is the chosen location for establishing the US base, and from there will Trump be launching attacks on Boko Haram and other jihadists that are killing Christians.

Trump shouldn’t have much business to do with the South West, except for access to the sea. For South East, may be with Gov Soludo’s recent remarks that Christians are killing Christians in Anambra, Trump might want to go and help out there too. Otherwise, the South East should be okay too. But I looked across the core Muslim North, and I am afraid it might not really be attractive to Trump. There’s really nothing there to take back to Washington, except swathes of farmlands which Bello Turji and his brothers in terror haven’t allowed innocent Muslim farmers access to cultivate.

Additionally, I don’t see any serious Nigerian economy structure that would interest Trump. If he’s coming to the core Muslim North, then it’d be the usual false flag operation as the US did in Iraq. It’d be a cover up to the war crimes it’d commit and the oil benefits it’d get through its Port Harcourt military base. For the gold mines in Zamfara, Sokoto, Kaduna and co, the villagers in those locations have already flew away since the bandits intensified their attacks on those villages. When Trump’s army arrives there, it’d be an engagement with the bandits, and that’s really a good one. The bandits should have a taste of their medicine.

Whenever I see a Nigerian cheering Trump’s arrival, I have to wonder if they’ve really thought it through. Muslims and Christians live side by side across our major cities; both faiths are present virtually everywhere. If a foreign intervention comes, nobody is guaranteed safety. The collateral damage will be real, and I fail to see what’s worth celebrating. And please rest assured, the political elite in Abuja would know in advance and would pack up and leave the country with their families. They would abandon you and the rest of us here with Trump. Maybe after 20 years of foreign involvement, as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of us will finally get a little bit of sense.

By Saidu Ahmad Dukawa 

Introduction

At last, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, has made the decision he had long planned against Nigeria, following complaints by some Nigerian Christians who alleged that they were victims of religious persecution in the country.

Trump had once placed a similar sanction on Nigeria during his first term, but after he lost the election to Joe Biden, Biden reversed that “rash and unfair” decision.

This new ruling, however, requires Nigeria to take certain actions in line with America’s interests — or face a series of sanctions. For example, these “American interests” could include the following:

1. Any Nigerian state practising Sharia Law must abolish it.

2. Any law that prohibits blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) must be repealed.

3. Any location where Christians wish to build a church must grant them permission to do so.

4. Anything that Christians claim makes them “uncomfortable” in the country — such as businesses involving halal trade — must be stopped.

5. All businesses that Christians desire, such as the alcohol trade, must be freely allowed across the nation.

These are just examples of the complaints made by some Christian groups to the United States, which may also include political and economic demands.

This action by Trump mirrors what America once did to Iraq under Saddam Hussein — accusing the country of possessing weapons of mass destruction, just to justify an invasion.

If true justice were the goal, then both sides — the accusers and the Nigerian authorities — should have been listened to, including Muslim organisations that provided counter-evidence.

Even among Christians, many reasonable voices have spoken against these exaggerated claims, yet their words are ignored. Clearly, a plan against Nigeria had already been set in motion.

So, what is left for the Nigerian government and its citizens to do? Here is my opinion:

WHAT THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO

1. Use diplomatic channels to inform the Trump administration that the situation is being misrepresented. Even if America remains adamant, the rest of the sensible world will know that any step America takes against Nigeria on this basis is pure injustice, and that knowledge itself will have benefits.

2. Reduce dependence on the United States in key areas such as trade, education, and healthcare. Nigeria should instead strengthen its ties with other countries, such as Russia, China, and Turkey.

3. Unite Nigerians — both Muslims and Christians who do not share this divisive mindset — to resist and expose any malicious plots against the nation.

WHAT THE NIGERIAN PEOPLE SHOULD DO

1. All Nigerians — Muslims and Christians alike — should begin to reduce their personal and travel ties with the United States, especially visa applications, as it may no longer be easy to obtain them.

2. Those who hold large amounts of US dollars should consider converting their funds into other global currencies.

3. Muslims with good relationships with Christians should not let this tension destroy their friendships — and vice versa. Let unity prevail.

4. Muslims must not lose hope or courage. They should realise that they have no powerful ally. Non-Muslims are the ones with global backing. The Jews can commit atrocities against Muslims, and America will support them. In India, Muslims are being killed — America is silent. In China, Muslims face persecution — America is silent.

In Nigeria, there is no single town where Muslims have chased out Christians, but in Tafawa Balewa, Christians expelled Muslims and took over the town. Terrorists who kill indiscriminately in Nigeria have taken more Muslim lives than Christian ones — yet Trump publicly declared that only Christian lives matter.

Still, Muslims can take comfort in one fact: Islam is spreading fast in both America and Europe. Perhaps, one day, when Islam gains ground there, justice and fairness will finally return to the world — because today’s problem is rooted in the injustice that Western powers built the world upon.

5. Nigerian Christians themselves need to wake up to the truth — that the Western world does not honestly care about Christianity, only about controlling resources and power.

If they really cared about Christian lives, they wouldn’t have ignored what’s happening in Congo — a country with one of the largest Christian populations — where Christians kill one another. The same goes for Haiti, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Rwanda.

There are numerous examples of Christian nations facing crises. And when Nigerian Christians think of running to the US for refuge, they will realise that America will not take them in. Therefore, it’s wiser to live peacefully with their Muslim brothers and sisters here in Nigeria.

6. Finally, it is the duty of all believers to constantly pray for Nigeria — that God protects it from every form of harm and evil.

Peace and blessings of Allah be upon you all.

Dr Saidu Ahmad Dukawa wrote from Bayero University, Kano (BUK).

By Aisha Musa Auyo

I preach kindness every now and then—kindness to a spouse, kids, parents, relatives, and others in our lives. But today, I want to dwell on the most crucial kindness… kindness to oneself.

This is a kindness that goes beyond this dunya (this world); a kindness that rewards you with the best of here and the hereafter. Being kind to oneself has many faces, but I’ll discuss the most important ones here:

Prioritising the Akhirah Over the Dunya

This world is merely a temporary place. Try as much as you can to resist the temptation of indulging in sins. Strive to stop any act that you would not love to die doing. Stop procrastinating regarding good deeds. We do not know when our lives will end; no one gives us notice. We owe ourselves this profound kindness: preparing for the inevitable.

The Investment of Sadaqah (Charity)

Giving out sadaqah, even if it’s merely half a date, expiates sins and prevents tragedy. We often spend a great deal on ourselves without calculation, yet when it comes to giving to others, we hold back and start calculating. What we forget is that whatever we give out is multiplied and comes back to us many times over. Whatever we spend only on ourselves ends here.

But you see, when we make other people’s lives easier, lessen their burden, or make them feel better, Allah multiplies that, and the reward is for both here and the hereafter. Whenever we spend on ourselves, let’s try to include those who are less privileged. We are not only helping others; we are being incredibly kind to ourselves beyond this dunya.

The Perpetual Reward of Sadaqah Jariyah (Ongoing Charity)

Let’s discuss Sadaqah Jariyah—a charity, in which the reward continues to reach you even after your death. We can achieve this through various means, such as investing in raising pious children, teaching the Quran, performing good deeds, drilling a source of water, contributing to an Islamic school or any other worthy cause, even if we can’t afford to sponsor it entirely, planting trees, etc.

We benefit more from this benevolence than the people it was intended for. We truly owe it to ourselves to show this type of kindness.

Cultivating Great Relationships

Cultivating good relationships with others, elevating their mood and ranks, making them feel great about themselves, and improving the quality of their lives are powerful ways we can be kind to ourselves. These are the investments that make people miss us and sincerely pray for us after we are gone. We owe this kindness to ourselves—being able to invoke the feeling of longing, missing, and praying for us when we are no longer here.

Sustaining Spiritual Well-being; keeping our mouth moist with Zikr (remembrance of Allah), Istighfar (seeking forgiveness), and Salawat (blessings upon the Prophet); reading the Quran; and constantly upgrading our knowledge and practice of our Deen (religion) is a kindness to ourselves that we should never compromise.

Integrity and Truthfulness

Saying the truth, having integrity and decency, minding one’s business, and having a halal (lawful) source of income is a profound kindness we owe ourselves, for this will be a shield from the Hellfire.

Simple, multiplied deeds

You see, a simple gesture—smiling at strangers, a kind word, an encouraging nod, removing a harmful object from the road, helping or feeding animals, or watering a plant—will go a long way in benefiting us here and hereafter. Angels are praying to Allah that whoever gives out, may Allah increase his wealth, and whoever withholds his wealth, may Allah withhold His blessings from him. So we should never forget that whatever we do, small or big, we shall receive it in multiples.

Being Intentional

One crucial thing I’d like to remind us here is to be intentional about everything we do. Let’s always ensure that our deeds and actions, big or small, are motivated by the reward of our Creator. Let every action or inaction emanate from the craving for Allah’s Rahma (Mercy) and the fear of His punishment. This, indeed, is the biggest kindness we owe ourselves.

Lemme stop here..

Aisha Musa Auyo is a doctoral researcher in educational psychology. A wife, a mother, a homemaker, a caterer, a parenting, and a relationship coach. She can be reached via aishamuauyo@live.co.uk.

By Dr Samaila Suleiman Yandaki

Nigeria is once again in the global spotlight in the wake of its redesignation as a Country of Particular Concern and the accompanying threat of U.S. military action by the Trump administration to save Nigerian Christians from “genocide”. This narrative is as dangerous as it is familiar, evoking the old imperial logic that simplifies and distorts our complex realities to justify external intervention. As a student of the politics of history and identity conflict, I find this portrayal beyond perturbing and perilous. 

I witnessed firsthand how such perilous narratives were debated in international policy circles when I joined other Nigerian and British stakeholders at a high-level summit at Wilton Park in February 2020 for a dialogue on “Fostering Social Cohesion in Nigeria”. Situated in the serene estate of Wiston House, Steyning, West Sussex, Wilton Park is an Executive Agency of the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, widely recognised as a global space for peace dialogues and post-conflict reflection. The meeting was part of the UK government’s follow-up to the Bishop of Truro’s Independent Review on the persecution of Christians worldwide, in which Nigeria was identified as a major flashpoint of “religious violence.” The Truro Report asserted that Nigerian Christians are facing systematic persecution and called upon Western governments to do more to protect them. 

At Wilton Park, we were offered more than an interfaith forum to dialogue; we were given the opportunity to deconstruct the dangerous oversimplifications that have come to characterise Western discourses on Nigeria. Unlike the imperialist gimmicks and threats emerging from Washington today, the British government, through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, convened diverse stakeholders from Nigeria and the UK – religious leaders, politicians, diplomats, academics, and civil society representatives – to deliberate on the multifaceted security challenges confronting Nigeria and explore ways of building social cohesion. I am not permitted by the Wilton Park Protocol to name participants or cite their specific interventions, but suffice it to say that, with few exceptions, those present were individuals who matter in Nigerian and British policy circles.

The participants spent three days discussing the farmer-herder crisis, the Boko Haram insurgency, and the persistent communal conflicts in the Middle Belt. What struck me most was the consensus among Nigerian participants — Muslims and Christians alike — that the “Christian persecution” framing was profoundly misleading. We emphasised that the reality was far more complex than the narrative of religious persecution suggests. The problem, as several participants observed, is not that Christians do not suffer violence, but that violence in Nigeria is indiscriminate, affecting all communities. To single out one group as uniquely persecuted is to misread the nature of the crisis. 

The Wilton Park approach reflected a subtle but significant shift– the need to appreciate the broader social, political, and environmental dynamics of violence in Nigeria. While the Truro Report relegated these factors to the background, we strongly highlighted them, showing that Nigeria’s crisis is a shared national tragedy rather than a targeted religious war. The goal was to nurture a more nuanced understanding, one that resists the reductive opposition between Muslim perpetrator and Christian victim. 

The meeting concluded on a high note with consensus around the “sensitivity and diversity of conflict narratives,” recognising that every victim’s voice deserves to be heard. It was agreed that shifting the narrative from “Muslims against Christians” and other binary categories must therefore be a priority if we are to avoid deepening existing divisions. The meeting recommended that the Nigerian government should “commission and fund independent, credible research on climate change, number of attacks, crime victims, cattle routes and patterns; develop strategy on how to use data to proactively educate, myth-bust and shape narratives for both sides of the argument; justice and peace training to be included in schools; Government of Nigeria to appoint a National Reconciliation Adviser; establish a Joint Religious Coalition to ensure accountability of government for insecurity and politicisation of conflict; develop religious engagement strategy; and commence dialogue to facilitate creating ‘Code of Conduct’ for religious leaders,” among other actionable recommendations. This later became the groundwork for further peacebuilding engagements between Nigerian and British stakeholders. The Wilton Park dialogue is a model of thoughtful engagement, the kind of thoughtful diplomacy the world requires in times of conflict, not the militarised moralism coming from Washington. 

The question is, what are the true intentions of Trump? Is he genuinely motivated by a humanitarian desire to protect Nigerian Christians, or is this another exercise in the US geopolitical and imperial crusade? History offers little reason for optimism. We know that humanitarian and messianic pretexts always precede Imperial interventions. In the 19th and 20th centuries, colonial logic was a “civilising mission”; today it is “defence of persecuted Christians”. The language changes, but the logic remains the same —define and rule, borrowing from Mahmood Mamdani. The Palestinian literary critic Edward Said describes this imperial habit of defining how others are perceived and how their suffering is interpreted. Therefore, classifying Nigeria—a complex, plural, and Muslim-majority nation—as a persecutor of Christians is a convenient casus belli for Trump, masquerading as a humanitarian concern. 

Meanwhile, I congratulate the proponents of the “Christian genocide” narrative in Nigeria and beyond. We are now officially a Country of Particular Concern, polarised and divided. As the advocates of the narrative await, with self-righteous anticipation, an American-led “rescue mission”, I want to remind them of the devastation that American invasion has brought to nations in the name of salvation: Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, Somalia. Each intervention was couched in the language of freedom, yet each left behind broken societies and deepened resentment.

The “Christian genocide” narrative is doubly dangerous: while deepening domestic divisions, it legitimises foreign intervention. This is not to deny the suffering of Christians in parts of Nigeria. Their pain is real and deserves acknowledgement. But this is equally true of Muslims and others who have suffered the same fate. The question is not who suffers most, but how that suffering is framed. 

Ultimately, the Nigerian state bears the greatest responsibility for its failure to protect all its citizens. Endemic corruption, elite impunity, and the persistent inability to provide security for Nigerians have created fertile ground for such divisive narratives to thrive. Unfortunately, the citizens themselves have collectively failed to hold the government accountable for these failures. Instead, they are busying themselves competing for victimhood, thereby creating the conditions for external powers to intervene discursively and politically. It is this vacuum that the Trump administration is filling.  

The task before Nigerian scholars, faith leaders, and policymakers is to reclaim the narrative, not through denial, but through a more honest, inclusive, diplomatic and historically grounded understanding and framing of its own complex realities. The federal government must strengthen its security institutions and reassert the primacy of equal citizenship. All lives matter in Nigeria—Christian, Muslim, and traditionalist alike.

Dr Samaila Suleiman writes from the Department of History, Bayero University, Kano.

By Misbahu El-Hamza

President Bola Tinubu has finally responded to the false accusation of a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria, a narrative that surfaced in late September. Yet as this claim gains traction in U.S. conservative circles, he should be more worried about his political prospects. The narrative—and U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent call to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC)—could give Washington both motive and cover to oppose Tinubu’s re-election in 2027, just as former President Goodluck Jonathan alleged of the Obama administration in 2015.

Former President Jonathan publicly claimed that he lost the 2015 election because of U.S. interference. Two issues broadly defined the diplomatic rift between the two governments. The first was Boko Haram’s insurgency and the abduction of the Chibok girls. In a 2018 BBC interview, Jonathan lamented that Nigerians in the U.S. joined public protests there, one of which famously featured Michelle Obama holding a placard with the slogan #BringBackOurGirls.

At the October 2025 launch of ‘SCARS: Nigeria’s Journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum,’ by former Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Lucky Irabor (retd.), Jonathan recalled: “When I was in office, one of the major scars on my government, and one I will retire with, is the issue of the Chibok girls. As Bishop Kukah said, no plastic or cosmetic surgeon will remove it.” The then-opposition under Muhammadu Buhari, which included Tinubu, exploited insecurity for political advantage, a factor that clearly contributed to Jonathan’s loss.

The second, and in my opinion, more damaging rift was Jonathan’s stance against same-sex marriage, reflecting the convictions of most Nigerians. In 2014, he signed the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, shortly after the Obama administration’s 2011 pledge to “use all the tools of American diplomacy” to promote gay rights globally. Washington’s reaction was swift. The White House warned of possible cuts to HIV/AIDS and anti-malaria funding, while Jonathan’s government held firm. Nigerians applauded him for that. But during the 2015 campaign, the Obama administration’s outreach, including direct appeals to Nigerian voters and a high-profile visit by Secretary of State John Kerry, was widely viewed as tacit support for Buhari, which many Nigerians, including Jonathan himself, believe shaped the election’s outcome.

Insecurity also played a domestic role in Jonathan’s downfall. Nigerians were increasingly alarmed by unrelenting violence—beyond Boko Haram, currently compounded by communal, ethnic, and religious clashes and by banditry mostly in northern Nigeria—that claimed hundreds of innocent lives. Regardless of how the world described it, the reality was and is still tragic. It eroded public trust and patriotism. Yet successive governments, rather than restoring security, have often appeared more concerned with foreign perceptions than with rebuilding national confidence and truly working to end the bloodshed of innocent Nigerians.

So, while Jonathan’s administration angered the Obama White House over the same-sex marriage law, many believe that Tinubu’s has irritated Washington for another reason.

In early September, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025 (S.2747) to the U.S. Senate. The bill seeks to sanction Nigerian officials allegedly complicit in “Islamist jihadist violence against Christians and other minorities” and those “enforcing blasphemy laws”. Blasphemy remains an offence under Nigeria’s criminal code and in the twelve northern states operating shari’a law. Yet, the Cruz bill’s language raises serious questions: how would the former officials be identified, and on what evidence? If Washington possesses proof, it has not presented any. Within Nigeria, such accusations often surface in political rhetoric but rarely withstand scrutiny.

Still, Nigeria’s greater “offence” under Tinubu—at least to American conservatives like Bill Maher, Mike Arnold, Ted Cruz, Riley Moore, and now Donald Trump—is its unwavering support for the Palestinian people. Successive Nigerian governments, whether Christian- or Muslim-led, have consistently condemned Israel’s occupation and called for a two-state solution as the only path to peace. This position, long-standing and bipartisan in Nigeria, clashes directly with Washington’s pro-Israel consensus.

After Nigeria’s firm statement at the 80th UN General Assembly in September, Maher went on his HBO show and declared, “I’m not a Christian, but they are systematically killing the Christians in Nigeria,” comparing it to Gaza and calling it “a more serious genocide.” Such claims, amplified by Trump’s rhetoric about “defending Christians,” serve U.S. political optics more than global justice. Recall Trump’s 2020 CPC designation for Nigeria. It was largely symbolic and carried no enforcement before he left office. His renewed posturing appears equally opportunistic.

Tinubu may believe U.S. pressure arises from concern for Christian victims of Islamist violence and that this aligns with Nigeria’s large Christian population. Yet the U.S. record tells a different story. The same establishment that condemns persecution in Nigeria supports Israel’s war in Gaza, where many casualties are both Muslim and Christian Palestinians.

If Nigeria accuses Washington of selective advocacy, it may find sympathy at home, but not in Washington, where lobbying interests dominate the narrative. Assuming that the “Christian genocide” argument will shield Nigeria from criticism would be a miscalculation.

Tinubu is not yet where Jonathan stood in 2015, but the parallels are unmistakable. The Obama administration’s posture during Jonathan’s re-election bid showed how U.S. influence can shape Nigerian politics. A sustained clash with U.S. policy on religious freedom and Palestine, coupled with insecurity and governance failures, could become a tipping point. Avoiding that outcome will require strategic diplomacy (which we have no doubt our president possesses), credible reform, and a domestic agenda rooted in accountability. Nigerians must see real action towards ending Boko Haram and banditry.

This moment demands political acumen and the disciplined management of both security and foreign relations. Tinubu cannot afford to repeat Jonathan’s missteps. In global politics, misreading Washington’s signals has previously cost Nigerian presidents, and history may not be kind to those who fail to learn from it.

Misbahu writes from Kano and can be reached via email: misbahulhamza@gmail.com

By Ishaka Mohammed

As a business owner in Nigeria, you can employ graduates to work for you for free, while each of them receives N150,000 from the European Union. Your role is to create a conducive environment for these young people to learn and grow over the next 12 months.

This is a marvellous opportunity created by the Federal Government of Nigeria, funded by the European Union and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

The Nigeria Jubilee Fellows Programme (NJFP) was launched on August 31, 2021, to address Nigeria’s unemployment challenges by connecting talented graduates with job placement opportunities in organisations across the country—offering experience and building skills.

In the first phase of the programme, 20,000 graduates under 30 years were shortlisted in 2022, but official reports indicate that many of them were not matched with organisations due to a scarcity of interested and qualified host organisations. 

For those who were matched with organisations between 2022 and September 2025, each person was entitled to a monthly stipend of N100,000—now N150,000, effective from October 2025.

The portal is now open for NJFP 2.0. If you have an organisation registered with the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), this programme will greatly benefit you by boosting your visibility, providing free labour, and helping some young people in your host community achieve financial success. Visit https://host.njfp.ng/registration/, complete the application and check your email regularly.

With a reasonable number of interested and qualified host organisations, NJFP 2.0 is expected to be more successful than the first phase of the programme.

As for Nigerians under 30 who graduated not earlier than 2022 and possess the NYSC discharged or exemption certificate, this might be worthwhile. The application link is https://portal.njfp.ng/registration/.

By the way, many of those who were shortlisted in 2022 were delisted in 2025 without being matched with organisations. Consequently, interested applicants are advised to explore other means of upskilling and generating income even after being shortlisted.

By Rabi Ummi Umar

When asked whether the move to provide special seats for women in the National Assembly is worth celebrating, my answer is an emphatic yes. This milestone is long overdue, yet deeply heartwarming. 

It is one Nigerian woman who has waited for it with hope and tenacity, far too long for it to come. First introduced in the 9th National Assembly as one of five gender-related constitutional reform bills, the proposal failed spectacularly when it came up for voting in March 2022. 

At the time, it was among the five “gender bills” put forward during the fifth constitutional amendment process, all intended to address women’s issues in governance and representation.

Initially, the bill proposed 111 additional seats in the federal legislature – three special seats for women in each state and one in the FCT, spread across the Senate and House of Representatives. The current bill, however, scales this number down to 74 seats under HB 1349, addressing concerns about over-expansion of the legislature. 

Notably, it also includes a review clause, allowing for termination after 16 years. Now passed through its second reading in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on Constitution Review for further legislative action, the bill has gained real momentum. 

It enjoys strong backing from the Speaker of the House, Abbas Tajudeen, women’s groups, the United Nations, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and several other key stakeholders. President Bola Tinubu, in his 2023 campaign manifesto, pledged to prioritise women’s inclusion. 

The advancement of this bill is thus heartening to see, a concrete step toward keeping that pledge. It is also a step in the right direction for Nigeria, opening doors for more women to participate in leadership and decision-making processes that shape the nation.

When this bill is finally actualised, Nigeria may only regret not taking the step earlier. Women have increasingly sought meaningful opportunities to prove their worth and play an active role in the country’s development. 

The aphorism goes, “Only a woman truly knows the pain of another woman.” With more women in parliament, issues that directly affect women and children will no longer be treated superficially or dismissed as “emotional.”

Beyond that, women deserve equal rights with men, including the right to participate fully in politics and lawmaking. Their presence in the National Assembly will not only bring balance but also a sense of belonging and pride. Issues like menstrual health, rape, child abuse, female genital mutilation, and femicide would find stronger voices and greater empathy in a more inclusive legislature.

As leaders and mothers, women bring perspectives grounded in lived experience. Their contributions would enrich debates, restore balance, and deepen gender equality—paving the way for a more prosperous and equitable Nigeria.

The case for women’s representation is not an empty one. Nigerian women have already shown what is possible when given opportunities. Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, former Minister of Finance and current Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), remains a shining example of excellence on the global stage. 

Obiageli Ezekwesili, who served as Minister of Solid Minerals and later Minister of Education, earned the enduring title of “Madam Due Process” for her tireless efforts in implementing reforms. And today, young women like Maryam Hassan Bukar, a poet and the UN’s first Global Advocate for Peace and Security, are inspiring the world with their brilliance and courage.

For these reasons and more, the case for women’s special seats in the National Assembly is both urgent and undeniable. Let us continue to support women, acknowledge their contributions, and provide them with opportunities to lead and advance. 

To those fighting for the bill’s passage, thank you for your courage and resilience. And to those who will one day occupy these seats, may you excel and bring pride to Nigeria.

Rabi Ummi Umar can be reached at rabiumar058@gmail.com.

By Abdullahi Abubakar Lamido 

When Nigeria first introduced Islamic banking more than a decade ago, a section of the public, especially some Christian leaders, cried foul. They labelled it an attempt to Islamise the nation. The word Islamic became synonymous with suspicion. Yet, history has since given its verdict. The same Islamic banking and finance that was once denounced as a tool for religious expansion has now become one of the most credible components of Nigeria’s financial system. Today, the government of Nigeria, regardless of faith or political party, routinely issues Sukuk (Islamic bonds) to finance national infrastructure, build roads, and other developmental projects. 

If Islamic banking did not Islamise Nigeria, how on earth will the halal economy, a trade-based development initiative, suddenly do so?

Unfortunately, some commentators continue to see through the fog of prejudice rather than the lens of global economics. The recently developed Nigerian National Halal Economy Strategy is not a religious project. It is an economic vision. It seeks to position Nigeria within a rapidly expanding global market that respects ethics, transparency, environmental responsibility, and product integrity; values shared by all civilisations, not by Muslims alone.

Globally, the halal economy is estimated at USD 2.3 trillion, excluding Islamic finance. It is growing at an annual rate of around 20 per cent, making it one of the fastest-expanding consumer markets in the world, valued at about USD 560 billion each year. The halal industry, initially rooted in food and beverages, has long transcended its traditional boundaries. It now spans pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, health products, toiletries, medical devices, and even service sectors such as logistics, marketing, media, packaging, branding, and finance. With rising affluence and awareness among global consumers, it has further extended to halal tourism, hospitality, fashion, and lifestyle services.

This development is not driven by Muslims alone. Indeed, the modern halal market is non-exclusive. Increasingly, non-Muslim consumers associate halal with ethical consumerism, animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and quality assurance. The label “halal” has evolved into a global mark of trust, symbolising cleanliness, safety, and ethical production.

Countries far removed from Islam, such as the United States, the Netherlands, Russia, China, and South Africa, are already major players in the halal economy. In the United States, the halal market is worth USD 12 billion annually, with halal food sales growing by more than 70 per cent since 1995. Over 90 per cent of U.S. dry dairy ingredient manufacturers now produce halal products, primarily for export.

In the Netherlands, where Muslims are barely a tenth of the population, non-Muslim Dutch consumers spend approximately USD 3 billion annually on halal food. In the United Kingdom, six million people consume halal meat, three times the Muslim population. These figures prove one thing: halal has gone mainstream. Even Russia is experiencing explosive growth in its halal sector, with domestic demand rising by 30-40 per cent annually. The country now produces around 65,000 tonnes of halal meat each year and hosts major expos such as the Moscow Halal Expo and KazanHalal.

China, with its 23 million Muslims, records 10 per cent annual growth in its halal industry, with trade worth USD 2.1 billion and export products valued at USD 10 million annually from the Ningxia region alone.

Africa, too, is awakening to this opportunity. South Africa—with only two per cent of its population being Muslim—is now one of the five largest producers of halal products globally, thanks to a robust certification infrastructure. Kenya, with a fast-growing halal certification regime, already has more than 150 certified companies serving local and regional markets.

Nigeria, with its vast agricultural resources, strategic location, and large Muslim population, stands at the crossroads of opportunity. The halal economy offers three immediate advantages:

1. Export Expansion: By developing credible halal certification and production infrastructure, Nigeria can unlock access to markets worth over USD 2 trillion, exporting beef, poultry, processed foods, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and other halal-compliant goods. Nigerian products can enter Middle Eastern and Asian markets that strictly demand halal certification.

2. Job Creation and SME Growth: The halal economy stimulates employment across value chains—from farm to factory, logistics, certification, branding, and export marketing. It empowers micro and small enterprises while ensuring compliance with ethical standards that appeal to both local and international consumers.

3. National Image and Ethical Standards: Halal certification ensures higher hygiene, traceability, and environmental protection. It is compatible with international standards like ISO and HACCP, thereby enhancing Nigeria’s global competitiveness. In essence, promoting halal is promoting quality, sustainability, and integrity—values that no religion should reject.

The critics who fear the halal roadmap as a step toward Islamisation fail to recognise that halal is an economic term before it is a theological one in this context. It stands for what is wholesome, safe, clean, traceable, and socially responsible. These values are not confined to Islam. They are embedded in Christianity, Judaism, and secular ethics alike.

The halal economy represents a fusion of faith and fairness, ethics and enterprise. It provides a model for a more responsible economic system—precisely the kind of moral economy the world craves in the aftermath of global financial and environmental crises.

When the debate over Islamic banking first arose, the same fear-mongering dominated the headlines. Yet, today, Islamic finance has built roads, schools, and hospitals across Nigeria through Sukuk and other Shari’ah-compliant financing. Christian engineers, contractors, and civil servants have benefitted immensely. The country’s Christian-majority states have received as much as the Muslim ones. No mosque was built, no church destroyed, and no constitution rewritten.

If Islamic banking did not Islamise Nigeria, how will halal exports do so? On the contrary, the halal economy promises to diversify Nigeria’s trade, create jobs, enhance foreign exchange earnings, and promote industrial standards that protect all consumers, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Nigeria cannot afford to watch from the sidelines while other nations—Christian, secular, and atheist alike—harvest the fruits of the halal economy. The world is shifting toward ethical consumption, sustainability, and traceable production. The halal brand, far from being divisive, is a passport to global markets.

The Nigeria National Halal Economy Strategy is not about religion; it is about relevance. It is about integrating Nigeria into the trillion-dollar value chain that prizes quality, fairness, and responsibility. Those who see crisis where there is opportunity risk being on the wrong side of history, just as those who once opposed Islamic banking and finance, now benefit from Sukuk-financed roads.

The celebration of the halal economy is not the planting of tomorrow’s crisis; it is the harvest of tomorrow’s prosperity for every Nigerian, regardless of faith. It is time we remove the caps of emotion and prejudice and wear the lenses of reason, tolerance, and progress. Nigeria must embrace every opportunity that promises shared prosperity, job creation, and national development. The halal economy is not about division—it is about direction. It is about placing our nation on the map of global relevance, productivity, and ethical growth. So help us God. 

Amir Lamido wrote from Abuja via lamidomabudi@gmail.com.

By Lawan Bukar Maigana 

In Nigeria, university strikes have become an all-too-familiar story, a recurring wound that never seems to heal. Each time ASUU announces an industrial action, lectures stop, campuses grow silent, and dreams are placed on hold. Politicians continue with their schedules, lecturers retreat to side jobs, but the students —the very heart of the education system —are left stranded. They lose time, motivation, and opportunities that they can never fully recover. Yet, as the cycle repeats, one cannot help but ask: who truly bears the weight of these strikes, and who should take responsibility for the damage they cause?

For decades, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) has justified its strikes as a means of pressuring the government to honour agreements on better funding, fair wages, and improved infrastructure. These demands are valid. Anyone who has walked through the corridors of a public university in Nigeria would agree that poor facilities, overcrowded lecture halls, and unpaid salaries reflect a deep neglect of education by successive governments.

But while the union’s grievances are understandable, the methods have become controversial. The government, on the other hand, often accuses ASUU of holding the system hostage. It argues that the union’s insistence on strikes as the only bargaining tool cripples progress and punishes innocent students who have no hand in the dispute. In the end, both parties trade blame while the students, the most powerless group in the equation, pay the ultimate price.

A four-year course can easily stretch to six or seven years because of strike interruptions. Many students find their enthusiasm fading over time. Some lose focus entirely and drop out of school. For those who persevere, the delay spills into their plans. By the time they graduate, they are already approaching 28, 29, or even 30, before the one-year NYSC service.

The real tragedy becomes apparent when they start searching for jobs. Most government and private organisations in Nigeria set an age limit of 26 to 30 for entry-level positions. By the time many graduates are done with university and service, they have crossed the threshold. Their only crime is being caught in a system that values bureaucracy over merit and punishes them for something beyond their control.

This is why it is not just an academic crisis; it is an economic one. Each prolonged strike increases youth unemployment and deepens poverty. Parents who struggled to pay tuition watch their investments stagnate, and the nation loses years of productivity from its young minds. How can a country move forward when its brightest are trapped in uncertainty?

Yet, every time negotiations collapse, the conversation focuses on who blinked first, ASUU or the government, not on who bleeds most from the outcome. It is as though the welfare of students matters less than the politics of power and payment. That is the heart of the problem.

Let us be honest. Both parties are culpable. The government’s insensitivity and failure to prioritise education are unacceptable. Budgetary allocations to education consistently fall below UNESCO’s recommended 26 per cent. Lecturers, too, must reflect on whether indefinite strikes remain the most effective way to demand change. It is one thing to fight for rights; it is another to destroy the bridge that connects those rights to the future.

If universities had better funding, research grants, and prompt salaries, ASUU would have no reason to down tools. But if the union continues to rely solely on strikes without exploring alternative forms of advocacy, such as strategic legal action, citizen engagement, or performance-based protests, then students will remain collateral damage in every industrial action.

The solution lies in sincerity from both sides. Government officials must stop making empty promises and start implementing lasting reforms. ASUU must adopt modern negotiation strategies that prioritise students’ interests first. The students themselves must also rise, through constructive activism, to demand accountability from all sides.

Education is not a privilege; it is a right. Every time it is disrupted, a generation loses part of its potential. The government and ASUU must remember that time is not renewable. Every month lost to a strike is a wound that never fully heals for a student.

Some will argue that strikes have brought partial victories such as improved salaries, better agreements, and occasional funding. But these victories often come at too great a cost. Students spend longer years on campus, graduate later, and face tighter job markets. Many lose scholarships or opportunities abroad because their transcripts are delayed or their academic calendars are unpredictable.

A society that allows this cycle to persist undervalues its youth. The damage is not immediately visible, but it later manifests in the frustration of jobless graduates, the rise of social vices, and the erosion of hope. When young people start believing that hard work no longer pays, the nation begins to decay silently.

The truth is simple: when universities are on strike, everyone loses, but students lose the most. They lose time, morale, and faith. And no compensation can restore that lost time.

Until the day Nigeria treats education as a national emergency, not a political bargaining chip, these strikes will continue, and the nation will keep producing delayed graduates and disappointed dreams.

The next time a strike is declared, we should ask not just who is right or wrong, but who is hurting most. Because in the end, it is not the lecturers or the politicians who suffer, it is the students whose futures hang in the balance.

Lawan Bukar Maigana is a media consultant, humanitarian, storyteller, and inspiring diplomat. He can be reached via email at lawanbukarmaigana@gmail.com.