National

By Sabiu Abdullahi

Fresh details have confirmed that ISWAP terrorists assassinated Brigadier General Yu Uba during an attack in Borno State, even though the Nigerian Army initially rejected reports about his capture.

Uba was travelling in a convoy with troops and members of the Civilian Joint Task Force near Sabon Gari in Damboa Local Government Area on Friday when insurgents launched a heavy assault at about 5 pm.

Two soldiers and two CJTF operatives were killed in the ambush.

Shortly after the incident, the army dismissed early reports about the abduction. One of those reports was published by HumAngle.

On Saturday, Appolonis Anele, director of army public relations, issued a formal rebuttal.

His statement said in part, “The Army Headquarters also wishes to debunk the fake narrative going round some media platforms online alleging the abduction of the Brigade Commander. The general public is hereby advised to disregard the fake news regarding the incident while praying for the continuous success of our gallant service men and women.”

Following this statement, several online pages circulated claims that the senior officer had safely returned to base.

That narrative shifted on Monday when ISWAP released a photo of Uba in their custody and declared that they had killed him afterwards.

Sources within the military told FIJ that the image was genuine.

They explained that the denial issued on Saturday was premature.

One of the insiders said, “Uba had taken videos to show he was alive and on his way back from the ambush. However, he never made it. These videos were what we relied on originally, but nobody waited to see him first before going to discredit.”

Another source confirmed that insurgents captured the senior officer only minutes after the initial attack.

Uba is now the highest-ranking Nigerian military officer ever taken by ISWAP since the group’s emergence.

By Oladoja M.O

In the grand, often tumultuous, theatre of African politics, a deeply entrenched and insidious narrative persists: the Messiah-Villain Binary. This simplistic, yet devastating, framework casts political leaders not as fallible public servants, but as either divine saviours or malevolent destroyers. It’s a binary that suffocates nuance, stifles accountability, and, in a continent desperate for democratic maturity, acts as a corrosive cancer on the body politic. We must call this what it is: a dangerous delusion that has shackled Africa’s progress for far too long.

This orientation, a relic of post-colonial strongman politics, reduces the complex art of governance to a moral melodrama. Citizens, conditioned to see their leaders as larger-than-life figures, become spectators in a perpetual battle between good and evil. When a new leader emerges, they are instantly elevated to the status of a messiah, the one chosen to slay the dragons of poverty, corruption, and instability. Any opposition is, by default, cast as the villain, a saboteur working against the people’s will. This is not just a rhetorical device; it’s a profound psychological trap that prevents a healthy, critical relationship between the electorate and those they elect.

Look no further than the story of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. In the euphoric dawn of independence in 1980, Mugabe was the indisputable messiah. He had led the liberation struggle, promised the people a new land, and was seen as the architect of a new, prosperous Zimbabwe. But as his rule solidified, dissent grew. His staunchest supporters did not see his brutal suppression of the Gukurahundi massacres and his increasingly authoritarian tendencies as the actions of a flawed leader, but rather as the necessary evils required to defeat the ‘villains’—the opposition, foreign agents, and internal critics. This narrative allowed him to dismantle democratic institutions and cling to power for nearly four decades, all while his country’s economy imploded. The messiah had morphed into a tyrant, but the binary, with its pre-assigned roles, kept many from seeing the reality until it was too late.

A similar pattern can be seen in Rwanda, albeit with a different trajectory. Following the 1994 genocide, Paul Kagame was hailed as the man who pulled his nation from the brink of total annihilation. He is undeniably a messiah figure for many Rwandans, credited with bringing stability, order, and remarkable economic growth. Yet, this messianic status has made it incredibly difficult for a genuine political opposition to emerge. Critics, journalists, and political rivals who question his iron grip on power are often swiftly silenced, accused of undermining national unity or of being sympathisers of the genocidal past. 

The messiah’s narrative, while perhaps initially justified, has become a tool to legitimize the suppression of democratic pluralism. The ‘villain’ is no longer the genocidal regime, but anyone who dares to challenge the man who defeated it. This is a profound danger: when a leader’s infallibility is tied to a nation’s salvation, dissent becomes tantamount to treason.

The messiah-villain binary is a disease that festers in the heart of African electoral politics. It’s visible in the fervent, almost religious, rallies where supporters see their candidate not as a political leader with a manifesto, but as an oracle. The 2017 Kenyan election and the subsequent crisis offered a stark illustration. Both Uhuru Kenyatta and Raila Odinga were cast as messianic figures by their respective supporters. For Odinga’s base, he was the long-awaited liberator, the man who would finally lead them to a promised land of social justice. For Kenyatta’s supporters, he represented stability and continuity, the man protecting the country from the ‘villainous’ forces of instability. This emotional fervour, fueled by tribal and regional loyalties, led to a deeply polarised society where compromise became impossible. The result was not just political gridlock, but a cycle of violence and deep-seated animosity that continues to haunt the nation. The election wasn’t a contest of ideas; it was a crusade.

This issue is not just a problem of the past; it remains alive and well today. In Nigeria, the perennial politics of ‘saviour’ and ‘enemy’ plague the electoral landscape. From the military regimes to the current democratic dispensation, every election is framed as a life-or-death struggle against forces of darkness. A new candidate emerges, promising to sweep away the corruption of the past, and is instantly elevated to a messianic pedestal. Yet, once in power, the same old patterns of patronage and unaccountability emerge. The people, having invested their faith in a person rather than in institutions and processes, are left disillusioned, only to repeat the cycle with the next messiah figure. This prevents the building of strong, independent institutions, a free press, an impartial judiciary, and a non-partisan civil service, because the entire political system revolves around the individual, not the rules.

The messiah-villain binary is a trap, a narrative cul-de-sac from which genuine democratic progress cannot escape. It’s a cancer because it preys on hope, exploiting the legitimate frustrations of the populace for political gain. It turns citizens into blind followers and opponents into sworn enemies. This dangerous orientation must be dismantled. We must stop looking for messiahs. There are no magical saviours.

There are only men and women who are fallible, flawed, and accountable to the people they serve. We must demand a politics of substance, not spectacle. We must judge our leaders not by the promises they make on the campaign trail, but by their respect for democratic institutions, their commitment to the rule of law, and their willingness to be held to account.

The true liberation of Africa as a continent and Nigeria as a nation will not come from a single hero, but from a critical and engaged citizenry that understands that the power to govern belongs to them and that no politician, no matter how charismatic, is a god. It is time to retire the messiah, to dismantle the villain, and to embrace the hard, unglamorous work of building a true and lasting democracy.

Oladoja M.O writes from Abuja and can be reached at: mayokunmark@gmail.com.

By Ishaka Mohammed

A man serving under the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) has come under fire for publicly threatening to sleep with his female secondary school students, whom he considered voluptuous.

According to a Nigerian Army officer and Facebook user, Kolawole Oludare Stephen, the Corps member, Oyaje Daniel (KD/25A/0494), currently serves at Judeen International School, Mando, Igabi Local Government Area, Kaduna State. The officer tagged the NYSC in a Facebook post for urgent action.

Another Facebook user, Ọluchi Eze, who tagged the NYSC in a post, mentioned Oyaje Daniel as a Corps member in a secondary school in Kaduna State.

Reacting to Ọluchi Ezeʼs post, the Corps member, with the Facebook name Comr Oyaje Daniel, confirmed his local government of national service and tendered an apology, but expressed shock at people’s judgment of his character.  “I am shocked by the news surrounding my character, and I want to assure everyone that I am not a rapist or a perpetrator of any form of abuse,” part of the post reads.

While some Facebook users considered him remorseful and deserving of forgiveness, others called for penalties. 

The Daily Reality gathered that Comr Oyaje Daniel had earlier commented on a Facebook post in which he had threatened to sleep with any SSS 3 female students who failed to “coordinate” themselves, stressing how their bodies were more voluptuous than those of 400 level undergraduates.

At the time of filing this report, the National Youth Service Corps has yet to comment on the matter.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

A group of prominent Nigerian citizens has condemned recent threats by U.S. President Donald Trump to relist Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern (CPC)” and possibly take military action to protect Christians, describing the move as an affront to Nigeria’s sovereignty.

In a statement issued in Kaduna, the group — comprising Dr Bilkisu Oniyangi, Professor Usman Yusuf, Dr Ahmed Shehu, Dr Aliyu Tilde, Dr Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, and Barrister Kalli Ghazali — warned that such rhetoric from Washington could inflame religious tensions and “turn Nigeria into a pawn in global geopolitics.”

The signatories emphasised that while the concerns of friendly nations such as the U.S., China, the U.K., and Russia are welcome, threats and external pressure are counterproductive. “This is our problem as Nigerians, and it will be solved by us,” the statement read.

The group urged President Bola Tinubu to directly address Nigerians, prioritise national security, and suspend foreign travels until the crisis is resolved. They also called on the U.S. to withdraw its threats and instead assist Nigeria through strategic cooperation and capacity building against terrorism and banditry.

They further appealed for unity among Nigerians, noting that “every life taken, every kidnapping or assault anywhere in Nigeria matters equally.”

Reaffirming faith in Nigeria’s resilience, the statement concluded: “Our independence and unity have been tested many times, and this too shall pass — but only if we act together as one people.”

By Abba Hikima

It is clear to even the most daft Nigerian that Nyesom Wike, a serving member of President Tinubu’s Federal Executive Council, is only in the PDP to sabotage it and clear the path for his benefactor, the President, come the 2027 elections. What may not, however, be clear is the extent to which Wike’s tactics and antics can undermine Nigeria’s democracy.

Whether you are APC, PDP, ADC or even politically indifferent, Wike’s actions should bother you, as long as you dream of a truly democratic Nigeria where institutions transcend whimsical meddling of the few.

From any angle, one sees a deliberate pattern that systematically seeks to dismantle the country’s main opposition party and tilts the political landscape dangerously toward one-party dominance.

The recent Federal High Court injunction, restraining the PDP from holding its planned November 15 National Convention, issued by Justice J. Omotosho, only reinforces this pattern. It aligns with a string of judicial outcomes and political manoeuvres that have consistently favoured Wike’s factional interests, all at the expense of Nigeria’s fragile democratic balance.

Between 2023 and 2025, Wike’s loyalists seized the PDP’s national secretariat at Wadata Plaza, installed their own acting chairman, and plunged the party into even deeper crisis. Earlier, he had been linked to moves to demolish the PDP headquarters in Port Harcourt and to lawsuits that derailed planned conventions.

These deliberate acts of sabotage are calculated to dismantle opposition structures and weaken the political alternatives that every democracy relies on. In Nigeria today, prominent political opposition actors are crosscarpeting from their political parties to the ruling APC, not because the APC is doing better, but to salvage their seats and realise their aspirations, which appear rather vivid with the APC.

In saner climes, inclusion of opposition figures within ruling governments is a laudable means of promoting national unity and bridging gaps. But in Nigeria’s case, Wike’s dual role, serving as a federal minister while wielding extraordinary control over an opposition party, is clearly a means of manipulation.

It blurs ethical boundaries and deprives citizens of genuine democratic alternatives.

Even more disturbing is Wike’s perceived closeness to certain segments of the judiciary- what Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu aptly described as a “pathological fixation.”

From 2019 to 2025, at least five major cases tied directly or indirectly to Wike’s interests have been heard before the same judge, fueling concerns of judicial clientelism —a scenario where powerful litigants can select their forums by proxy.

The danger goes far beyond politics.

If political elites can manipulate opposition parties while simultaneously bending judicial processes to their favour, then democracy becomes mere theatre. A performance that preserves power and erodes accountability.

Having said this, the National Judicial Council should randomise the assignment of politically sensitive cases and ensure that no single judge repeatedly handles matters involving the same litigants. A stronger ethical firewall must also be built between judicial officers and politically exposed persons.

Politically, Nigeria must introduce conflict-of-interest rules that bar sitting ministers or presidential appointees from exerting control over opposition parties. Democracy cannot thrive when the same hand both governs and manipulates its opposition.

Coming this far, we must accept that reform is not optional; it is existential.

Abba Hikima, Esq. wrote from Kano, Nigeria.

By Sabiu Abdullahi

A former Bauchi State Commissioner for Education, Dr. Aliyu Usman Tilde, has called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to remove the Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Professor Joash Ojo Amupitan, over what he described as a clear display of bias.

Dr. Tilde made the call in a post on his Facebook page where he wrote: “TINUBU: INEC Chairman Should Resign or be Kicked Out. This is too gross and partial for his chair.”

His comment followed the resurfacing of a 2020 publication authored by Professor Amupitan, in which he described the violence against Christians in Nigeria as “genocide.”

The document, titled “Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria and the Implications for the International Community,” was part of a legal brief submitted to international organisations.

In the publication, Amupitan stated that crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity were being committed in Nigeria, adding that the victims were “mainly the Christian population and minority ethnic groups.”

The resurfacing of this document has triggered heated reactions across the country, with critics saying the position taken by Amupitan before his appointment raises serious questions about his neutrality as the nation’s electoral umpire.

Dr. Tilde, in his post, expressed concern that such views could undermine public trust in INEC, insisting that the chairman’s past statements make him unfit to preside over Nigeria’s electoral process.

Neither Professor Amupitan nor INEC has officially responded to the criticism.

However, some of his supporters argue that his earlier legal opinion was written in his capacity as an academic and lawyer, not as an election official.

The controversy has continued to generate debate among political observers, with calls for President Tinubu to address the matter to safeguard the credibility of future elections.

By Sa’adatu Aliyu

“I was Igbo before the white man came” is a saying by Chimamanda Adichie through her character Odenigbo in her infamous book Half of a Yellow Sun, reinforcing pride in her African heritage before the white man’s incursion, which destabilised the otherwise peaceful coexistence of African communal states.

However, it seems to me that she has been afflicted by the Igbo superiority complex over other tribes in Nigeria, especially the Hausa-Fulani in the North. This pride in being traditionally Igbo and human doesn’t extend to her acknowledgement of the Hausa-Fulani Muslim humanity and identity—held with equal pride—just as the Hausa-Fulani were before the Whiteman.

Ethnic Pride and Selective Humanity

Moreover, the likes of Adichie and her Igbo fanatics would rather make baseless and false claims about the Igbos being suppressed and ethnically cleansed in letters to Washington than sit to resolve their differences internally with their brothers in the North, solely because they are Muslims whom the Igbos do not perceive as human equals.

Generally speaking, the problem with the Igbos is that they believe all the lands in Nigeria belong to them. Their illusion of grandiosity makes them feel entitled to all locations in Nigeria beyond their region as places they have the right to live, seek better economic opportunities, and build a stable, secure life. In contrast, the same right is not extended to other tribes in Nigeria, especially the Hausa man, who, until today, faces all sorts of harassment whenever he is in the Southeast, sometimes stopped and asked by unscrupulous elements to pay “matching ground” money.

This is a form of tax collected from non-indigenous individuals seeking better economic opportunities over there—a thing that doesn’t occur in the North. Unlike the South, even though Muslims predominantly inhabit the North, it has a significant presence of churches, whereas the presence of mosques is not tolerated in the Southeast except in a few exceptional cases. Moreover, if the North was so brutal towards the Christians as they depict, why do Southerners/Eastern Nigerians seek greener pastures in the North more than the North moves towards their region? If it was so unfriendly to the Igbos and Christians, why not the Igbos remain in their regions, and the North remain in theirs?

Power, Entitlement, and the North–East Tension

While all Nigerian citizens have the right to live and build a life devoid of fear in any part of Nigeria, the Igbos particularly think they should be the ones solely steering the affairs of Nigeria and should be the sole tribe entitled to managing the juiciest positions in government, merely for being Igbo, not necessarily based on superior qualification.

Understanding the mentality of the Igbos has led to what I’d like to refer to as a “personality clash” with the Hausa-Fulanis. Despite being perceived as backwards in an educated population, they are like poor men who would never sacrifice their dignity for money, nor bow to any force that may seek to demean them based on possessing more Western education.

This has led to the long-standing tension between the two ethnic groups. The case of the North and the East is akin to a couple in their early years of marriage experiencing a clash of personality—not necessarily due to lack of love or to cause deliberate harm, but because one happens to blow issues out of proportion by arguing that the other insists on hurting them deliberately.

Instead of checking in with their ego, they engage in score keeping, accusing, and incessantly crying out for help, even if it means seeking a third party in the cloak of a certified therapist—who may hiddenly be a psychopath and has no genuine interest in the wellbeing of the couple, but instead has its greedy eyes on the money to be extorted from them, further destroying their home.

The West as “Therapist”: Foreign Meddling and Naivety

This is precisely what the Christians in Nigeria are doing by seeking the intervention of so-called America, peering underneath African countries’ beds looking for genocide, when the very foundation of the U.S. was built on the vile killings of Indigenous Native Americans.

This scenario has been fueling some of the false accusations circulating in the media about genocide against Christians in the North. It is no doubt Nigeria has been plagued by indiscriminate killings and kidnappings in the past few years, but this has involved the loss of lives and livelihoods of citizens across all ethno-religious groups—mainly by Boko Haram militias and banditry—and not killings affecting Christian communities alone, as the naive Christians of Nigeria, who still put the U.S. on a saintly pedestal, have been framing it.

This is mere fabrication born out of a myopic desire to destabilise the fragile peace still holding the nation together, forgetting that foreign powers have never and will never look out genuinely for the Black race, but have repeatedly set their eyes on how to invade and plunder the resources of our dear land.

Be it the U.S., Russia, China, or other subordinate world powers, they couldn’t care less if Africa burned. All they would do is not find a way of quenching the fire but find a means to steal our resources, all the while supplying the weapons we’ll use to maim our brothers with whom we share the same African Black DNA.

It is sad that, in the eyes of Nigerian Christians, America remains a demigod they rush to whenever facing a “problem.” in this manner. But this doesn’t paint the image of a race free from the shackles of colonialism—it looks to me like a remix of the same song to which we can’t dance, should any foreign power invade as is being threatened by the U.S currently. 

Nigerians should never forget Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and every other country the U.S. has invaded. It was never for goodwill or for the sake of the masses to have a better life; it was never about democracy but about the kleptomaniac instinct of foreign powers to pillage, to use the stolen resources of Africa to build their countries.

Colonial Mind enslavement and the Illusion of Freedom

When Chimamanda Adichie said she’s Igbo before the invention of the white man, I presume she was refuting the attempt of the white colonialist to redefine her ancestral root. She was rejecting the image of the indigenous people of Africa that the white man struggled to create to wipe out her identity.

I also want to believe the white man here is seen as foreign, intrusive, with no right to rewrite the history of the African people, nor to decide our destiny. But how come the same Nigerians, especially Igbos who pride themselves on being a fraction of the Black race, are quick to call for the intervention of the same white man to salvage them—to resolve a conflict with their African brothers on religious division, (the religions) on the basis which they’re stirring foment being a product nothing but a product of colonialism?

Yet they pick up their pens and still write saintly yet furiously about pride in Africa, Pan-Africanism, Negritude, and pride in the Black race they claim to represent. And one wonders with the level of hate projected towards Northern Muslims, whether they are not part of the black Africans. To me, this is nothing short of colonial mind slavery that still bedevils even our so-called intellectuals, blinded by religious fundamentalism and succumbing to it so effortlessly. Hence, one begins to question their education.

As Chuba Okadigbo once said:

 “If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless.

If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind.”

Mirroring a similar view, if the educated one cannot look beyond ethno-religious sentiment and live objectively, he has no business being called educated. However, this is a hat donned by several of Nigeria’s think tanks, sadly.

Similarly, Nelson Mandela reminds us:

 “It is not our diversity which divides us; it is not our ethnicity, or religion or culture that divides us…”

Can the African mind ever be decolonised? I doubt so. It might all look like we are free, but there’s no freedom without the freedom of the mind.

So, the quest of Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o for Africans to free themselves from mental colonial slavery—which led to his abandonment of the English language and adoption of Kikuyu—doesn’t extend to this area for many Christian fanatics who happen to be influential writers from the Eastern part of Nigeria. And this is utterly disheartening.

In Conclusion

In the wake of all this commotion, I perceive the naivety of those spreading these lies to draw foreign intervention in Nigeria as an act of somnambolic foolishness—for which I am sure they will regret when they come face to face with the hypocrisy that lies in the heart of world powers, should they get what they are calling for.

I pray for peace, unity, religious understanding, and togetherness in Nigeria and the world at large. Let us always remember: a shred of peace is better than no peace at all.

Saadatu Aliyu is a writer and poet based in Zaria. Email @: saadatualiyu36@gmail.com 

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 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 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.