Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

The Petroleum Industry Act (PIA) 2021 does not prohibit the importation of petroleum products into Nigeria. There is no outright ban; instead, the Act supports a deregulated market with regulatory oversight governing imports.

Dangote’s grievance with the Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority (NMDPRA) under Engr. Farouk Ahmed centres on the continued issuance of import licences to petroleum marketers. And the failure to impose heavy levies and taxes on imported petroleum products 

According to the NMDPRA, Nigeria’s petrol imports averaged 52.1 million litres per day in November 2025.

The Nigerian Midstream and Downstream Petroleum Regulatory Authority further disclosed that the NNPC imported the bulk of Nigeria’s petrol requirements in November 2025, with total imports by all marketers amounting to 1.563 billion litres during the month.

In the first round of this battle, Dangote appears to have “won,” as President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has replaced Engr. Farouk Ahmed of the NMDPRA and Gbenga Komolafe of the Nigerian Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission (NUPRC). Oritsemeyiwa Amanorisewo Eyesan has succeeded them as Chief Executive Officer of the NUPRC and Engr. Saidu Aliyu Mohammed as Chief Executive Officer of the NMDPRA, subject to the Senate’s approval.

The bottom line is that this battle will continue. The new chief executives cannot outrightly ban the importation of petroleum products by the NNPC or other marketers, as there is no law to support such a ban. However, they are likely to engage Dangote cautiously to avoid the fate that befell Farouk Ahmed and Gbenga Komolafe. Which is not a good thing for any regulator in any industry 

If Dangote truly seeks full market patronage, pricing is key. His products must match or beat the cost of imported petroleum products. Marketers operate on a simple philosophy: buy good, sell good. 

If Dangote Refinery’s prices and processes are competitive or superior to imported products, no marketer would endure the challenges of sourcing foreign exchange, freight costs, and time delays when a cheaper and readily available alternative exists at their doorstep.

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

By Maryam Ahmad

Nigeria and the Islamic Republic of Iran have reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening bilateral relations, with renewed focus on trade, investment, energy cooperation, and multilateral engagement.

The commitment was restated during a high-level meeting held on 17 December 2025 in Abuja, where the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Dunoma Umar Ahmed, PhD, received the Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to Nigeria, His Excellency Gholamreza Raja.

The meeting marked one of Ambassador Raja’s first formal engagements following the presentation of his Letters of Credence to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Both sides emphasised the importance of sustained diplomatic dialogue and collaboration in areas of mutual interest.

They also expressed readiness to explore new opportunities that would further strengthen ties between the two countries and contribute to regional and global cooperation.

By Muhammad Umar Shehu

Once again, the federal government is threatening the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) with its usual tactic, no work, no pay. It’s the same tired strategy used by previous administrations whenever the union pushes for the full implementation of agreements that were voluntarily signed. But history has shown that this policy does not resolve issues; it only increases mistrust, diminishes morale, and further weakens our universities.

During President Muhammadu Buhari’s administration, the no-work-no-pay policy was enforced after the 2022 ASUU strike, which lasted eight months. Lecturers were unpaid despite the government’s failure to fulfil promises that caused the strike. Buhari’s approach focused on punishment rather than dialogue, leading to resentment and strained relations with academics. The key issues- poor funding, unpaid allowances, and decayed infrastructure- remain unresolved.

Education is not like any other sector. ASUU is not just another pressure group that you can intimidate or silence with threats. This is a body of intellectuals, people whose weapon is knowledge and whose struggle is for national development. You can’t use the same tactics that might work on transport unions or political protesters on an organisation built on principles, history, and intellectual resistance.

Globally, similar unions in countries such as South Africa, the United Kingdom, and even the United States have stood their ground when governments have failed to meet academic demands. In 2016, for instance, the South African “Fees Must Fall” movement forced the government to rethink its policies and increase education funding. In the UK, university staff have repeatedly gone on strike over pay and working conditions, yet the government has had to return to the negotiating table rather than threaten them. These examples show that dialogue and respect for agreements are the only sustainable paths, not coercion.

In Nigeria’s own history, ASUU has endured decades of intimidation and threats. From the military era to the present democratic dispensation, their fight has remained consistent to protect public universities from total collapse. They have been banned, unbanned, and blacklisted, yet they stay because they represent something more profound than just salary negotiations. They represent the conscience of our educational system.

The government’s repeated use of the “no work, no pay” policy is not just short-sighted; it is a confession of leadership failure. Instead of fixing the root causes of the strikes, those in power prefer to silence those who expose their neglect. The result is what we see today: poor learning conditions, brain drain, and a generation of students whose academic lives are constantly interrupted.

It’s time the government understood that ASUU’s strength lies in its moral ground. Their struggle is not for personal gain but for the survival of education in Nigeria. Threats won’t work; intimidation won’t help. Only commitment, dialogue, and respect for signed agreements will bring peace to our universities.

If we truly want to equip our education system for the poor and the future, we must stop treating teachers as enemies and start treating them as partners. A nation that punishes those who fight for education has already given up on its future.

Muhammad Umar Shehu wrote from Gombe and can be reached viaumarmuhammadshehu2@gmail.com.

By Isyaka Laminu Badamasi

It is becoming glaring that the Federal Government is taking Nigerians for granted. A few months back, we were all here condemning the new tax reform introduced by the APC administration led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a reform whose implications will be deeply felt by Nigerians, especially the downtrodden.

Though some analysts and experts argue that the new tax reform is the right step, particularly for an economy whose revenue depends almost 70% on crude oil, my little contribution to the debate is not to analyse the reform or weigh its positive and negative impacts on our well-being. Rather, it is to raise a few critical questions arising from my thoughts on the matter at hand.

My concern is specifically about content creators who were engaged to sensitise Nigerians on the new bill—a development that sparked another debate, one that again exposed our disunity as a people and our lack of seriousness about matters of national importance and those inimical to our well-being. Nigerians, especially Northerners, instead of examining the bill and preparing for constructive criticism, began complaining that none of the selected content creators was from the core North. As if having a core Northern content creator in the sensitisation team would somehow change or reduce the taxes that will eventually be imposed on core Northerners.

With or without any sensitisation or awareness campaign, the new tax reform has come to stay. Regardless of how people accept or reject it, it will be implemented as planned. The content creators engaged by the government may not even understand the policy themselves, let alone be able to sensitise the public properly.

For me, therefore, this entire conversation about the “selection of content creators” is unnecessary. To my understanding, it was technically designed to divert Nigerians’ attention. Instead of focusing on constructive criticism of this inhumane policy, we have been pushed into arguing over who should be involved, when, and how—a distraction that does not help an already fragmented country.

Let us not forget that we are in 2025, in the 21st century—111 years as an amalgamated entity and 65 years as an independent nation, with more than two and a half decades of an uninterrupted democratic dispensation. It is high time we appreciate our togetherness despite the odds and chart a path toward unity. This is especially crucial at this moment, when we are facing serious and multidimensional security challenges, particularly here in the North, ravaged by bandits, insurgents, and kidnappers, with pockets of ethnic and religious conflicts here and there. Do we so easily forget that Nigeria was once declared a “country of particular concern” by the US President, Donald Trump?

It is important for policymakers and implementers to avoid introducing issues that, instead of fostering peaceful coexistence, end up dividing us. Meanwhile, those in positions of authority continue siphoning our meagre resources—resources that have failed to address our critical challenges in health, education, security, and other essential sectors.

On the issue of not engaging or selecting content creators from the core North for this “all-important” sensitisation campaign, the situation is both baffling and questionable. It is strange that the PR unit of the FIRS/FGN did not consider the three major languages—Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba—alongside English, our official language, as part of their information-dissemination strategy. However, it is still not too late to make corrections.

Whatever the reasons may be, Nigerians—regardless of region or religion—should prepare themselves, as the policy will take effect come January 2026.

Isyaka Laminu Badamasi wrote via makwalla82@gmail.com.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

President Bola Tinubu has expressed profound sadness over the death of the revered Islamic leader, Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi, who passed away on Thursday at the age of 101.

In a statement released on Thursday, the President described the late leader of the Tijjaniyya Muslim Brotherhood as a “moral compass” who dedicated his life to teaching and preaching.

President Tinubu stated that Sheikh Bauchi’s loss is monumental not only to his family and followers but also to the entire nation. He recalled the blessings and moral support he received from the cleric during the 2023 presidential election campaign.

“Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi was a teacher, a father and a voice of moderation and reason. As both a preacher and a notable exegete of the Holy Quran, he was an advocate of peace and piety. His death has created a huge void,” the President was quoted as saying.

The President extended his condolences to the Sheikh’s multitude of followers across Nigeria and beyond, urging them to immortalise the late cleric by holding on to his teachings of peaceful coexistence, strengthening their relationship with God, and being kind to humanity.

By Lawal Dahiru Mamman

History has shown, time and again, that empires rise and fall. The Roman Empire, one of the most powerful the world has ever known, once ran its affairs through the “cursus publicus”, a state-run courier service that carried official messages, documents, and goods across vast territories. At its peak, that system was the lifeblood of Rome’s political and economic power.

It was through the “cursus publicus” that Rome sustained control over trade, tax collection, commercial regulation, and responses to economic challenges. It kept the wheels of commerce turning, ensured that official supplies — from grains and olive oil to textiles and metals — moved swiftly, and maintained the empire’s hold over its provinces.

But as Rome began to lose its grip on that system, communication faltered. Trade weakened. Taxes dwindled. Economic integration collapsed. What followed was a slow, sprawling decline that signalled the empire’s loss of power and the gradual rise of others.

Today, empires no longer look like Rome. They are defined by global influence, control of international systems, and the ability to shape the world order. The West — especially the United States — has long enjoyed that advantage. But emerging power blocs are redrawing the world map, and anyone can see the global balance is shifting.

It is against this backdrop that the recent noise around an alleged “Christian Genocide” in Nigeria must be understood. Following that allegation, US President Donald Trump redesignated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC). The designation carries several potential consequences: aid cuts, export license restrictions, asset freezes, limited security cooperation, and even American opposition to international loans and investments.

Not stopping there, Trump went a step further, issuing a dramatic threat of military action that would be “fast, vicious, and sweet” if the Nigerian government failed to protect its citizens. His declaration sparked reactions far beyond Nigeria’s borders, raising an important question: What truly motivates America’s sudden aggression?

To understand this, one must consider the broader geopolitical shifts unfolding beneath the surface. In January 2025, Nigeria joined BRICS — a powerful intercontinental bloc formed by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa later joining. The BRICS exists largely to counter the dominance of Western institutions like the IMF and the World Bank and to promote a multipolar global economy in which the US dollar no longer reigns supreme. 

With a combined GDP of roughly $30 trillion, the bloc wields real economic weight. Nigeria’s entry strengthens its ties with major economies such as China and India, promising new investments in energy, agriculture, infrastructure, and industrial development. It also opens the door to greater export opportunities, especially in oil and natural gas. 

For a country long boxed into Western-controlled financial systems, BRICS offers breathing space — and alternatives. There is also the Dangote Refinery, with its single-train capacity of 650,000 barrels per day. For decades, Nigeria relied on imported fuel despite its abundant crude oil. That era is ending. Import figures are falling sharply — 24.15 million litres per day in January 2025, 19.26 million in September, and just 15.11 million in the first ten days of October. 

With Dangote planning to expand to 1.4 million barrels per day, Nigeria is on the path to fuel independence, rivalling India’s Jamnagar Refinery, the world’s largest. This development, naturally, unsettles countries that benefit from Nigeria’s dependence — America included.

Then there is Nigeria’s deepening relationship with China. In the past year alone, Nigeria has signed major deals on industrial parks, rail and port infrastructure, mineral exploration, and energy development. China’s economic footprint in Nigeria is expanding rapidly. Meanwhile, Russia’s growing presence across sub-Saharan Africa and Nigeria’s renewed ties with France add to America’s discomfort.

The mineral dimension is equally sensitive. Beyond oil, Nigeria holds rare minerals — including lithium — that power the world’s battery industry. In a world moving toward electric mobility and renewable energy, lithium is the new oil. And China, not the United States, is securing access.

US Senator Ted Cruz once captured America’s anxiety bluntly during a congressional session when he warned: “China is a global threat that must be confronted territory by territory, nation by nation… China is pouring billions into its Belt and Road Initiative… gaining control over cobalt, lithium and other rare earth minerals… refining more than 70% of the world’s cobalt and controlling vast shares of global supply chains.”

His comments speak volumes when placed beside today’s geopolitical tensions. None of this denies the fact that Nigeria still faces grave security challenges. Our leaders must rise to their responsibilities and make the country safe for all. But it is naïve to imagine that America’s sabre-rattling is purely humanitarian. 

The United States may not be threatening a “sweet” military strike out of concern for Nigerian lives. Rather, like Rome losing its “cursus publicus”, America may be reacting to a shifting world order in which its grip is slipping — and Nigeria now sits at the centre of that shift.

Lawal Dahiru Mamman writes from Abuja. He can be contacted at: dahirulawal90@gmail.com.

By Aliyu U. Tilde

We will write herein facts that even Professor J. O. Amupitan, the current INEC Chairman, will find it difficult to deny. It regards the “Legal Brief” he wrote in 2020 recommending foreign intervention in Nigeria. I owe him the respect of a student and a consideration for his standing as a legal luminary. Follow me on this long trip.

1. Context

We are judging Prof. Amupitan in retrospect, based on something he wrote five years ago in his limited capacity as a university lecturer at my alma mater, University of Jos (UNIJOS). He may have shifted his position on some issues since then. His current position as INEC chairman will now expose him to the challenge and experience of fairness and inclusion, which the environment of Jos could not afford him. Today, if asked to write on Christian genocide in Nigeria, I believe he would sound radically different.

We are engaging him, nonetheless, on this past record for the benefit of its future readers. It will also help us understand the arguments used to convince President Trump to enlist Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern in 2020 when the Legal Brief was written.

2. Audience

It is also important to note that he did not write the legal brief for the general public, an academic press or a client before a court of law. It was the main body of a document titled Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter: Genocide in Nigeria and Implications for the International Community, which is “authored, published and distributed by Washington-based International Committee on Nigeria (ICON) and International Organisation for Peace-building and Social Justice.” 

Principally, they are among the organisations that pressured American authorities to sanction Nigeria in 2020. The first item in the Foreword of the publication was a letter to Michael Pompeo, the then-US Secretary of State under Trump, written by former Congressman Frank R. Wolf.

Giving this highlight is important in understanding why, unlike other professional, academic and journalistic documents, Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter is limited in scholastic latitude. It speaks only to Christians, for Christians, and for the purpose of Christians. When thrown into the public arena, as Sahara Reporters has done now, its bias will attract the reproach of many.

3. Unprofessional Language

The professor has in many places used words that are unbecoming of an academic or legal luminary in a number of instances as the foundations of his argument. Speaking about the demographic superiority of Muslims in the North, he said: 

“…while the Hausa/Fulani people are predominantly Muslims and are said to be in the majority” without any reference in the end. “Are said” here entertains doubt in the fact he mentioned. Well, thank God, Prof is INEC Chairman today; the voters’ register and elections result records will teach him the hard truth. Other unbecoming phrases include “it was taken for granted”, “it is believed”, “it is a notorious fact”, “Christians generally believe…”.

A layman can be forgiven if he uses such terms. But, with due respect, they must not be the diction of a Senior Advocate.

4. Spurious and Tendentious Claims:

The “Legal Brief” is loaded with baggage of spurious and tendentious claims that are not supported by statistics, historical records or judicial pronouncements. For example, he said:

— “Fulani people only joined Nigeria in the 19th Century through trade, jihad and conquest”,

— “major tribes in Nigeria – Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, Igbo”,

— the British “handed over a polity fraught with dishonest census figures, political gerrymandering and favouritism in the appointment into the public service in favour of the Northern Region, as a reward for the northerners’ loyalty to the colonial administration”,

— “…with the distorted systemic structure in favour of the Hausa/Fulani, it is possible to revisit the 1804 agenda while the other ethnic groups believe that constitutionalism has brought into existence a true federation based on equity, fairness and justice.”

—“The drive for Islamisation of Nigeria through the jihad of 1804… has now manifested as the Jama’at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-Da’ wah wa’l-Jihad commonly called Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen’s attacks and even the Sharia controversy.”

I have listed 49 such unsubstantiated statements and appended them at the bottom of this article. If anyone wants to hang Prof academically, Prof has handed him is enough rope to do so. The statements are not only inaccurate but, taken together, paint the Hausa/Fulani in a very poor light. The brief repeatedly vilifies them at various points, using unfounded claims. But it is not our intention here to hang him. I will advise Prof to check them and make corrections in future.

5. False Premise

Certain claims he made appear to be inaccurate or misleading. Consider this: 

Speaking of atrocities of Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen, he said: “The victims of the crises are mainly the Christian population and the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria.” 

Haba! This is a misstatement that even a Christian boy on TikTok disproved yesterday: He said, “I will speak the truth. I am from Borno. If 10 people are killed by Boko Haram, 9 will be found Muslims.”

But fairness and truth are not the language of even the most highly placed clerics if they are promoting a sectarian agenda. A similar misrepresentation was also made by the Anglican Bishop of Jos, Benjamin-Aghak Kwashe, in his contribution to the Foreword. He said:

“It is a common development and an everyday occurrence across Nigeria to kill Christians, meanwhile offenders are not being prosecuted and the leaders are unresponsive…We recognize that Christians are taking the brunt of the persecution but even Muslims in the northwest and in some parts of the northeast have been killed.”

If the argument of Christian genocide in Nigeria is premised on such bareface fabrication—that majority of those killed by Boko Haram and bandits are Christians, and it is going on every day, and that the authorities did nothing about it or prosecuted nobody—then the conclusion that a foreign intervention is necessary is baseless. It is so painful to see highly placed individuals in the society promoting such a deeply misleading narrative against the people and government of their country before foreigners like this.

Last week, the Federal Government revealed that it has convicted over 730 people on charges of terrorism. And if the government had indeed done nothing, as claimed throughout the document, would not the entire Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States have been under its singular dream caliphate? Who fought Boko Haram back into the forest of Sambisa and the hills of Gwoza after it was set to take over Yola in 2014? Who killed Muhammad Yusuf, Shekau, and so many of their followers? Who killed hundreds of bandits and their leaders in the northwest? 

And if Christians are killed daily, as the bishop said, how many were killed in the past two days—11th and 12th November—and where? In fact, peruse the papers of the last week, where is a single report indicating the killing of a Christian in Nigeria by Boko Haram or bandits other than in the imagination of these sectarian leaders?

It is into this baseless pit that the Christian Right in America and the Anglican Church in England fell and which, fortunately, the Vatican resisted many times.

6. Extrapolation

Prof hardly backed his assertions with the requisite data befitting his intellectual station, even when data on most ethno-religious incidents in the North can easily be drawn from credible sources on the Internet. And he is quick to extrapolate from a mention of just one person to cover the entire Christian North. An example is his accusation that

“Underage girls are abducted, hypnotized and forced to convert to Islam and also forced into marriage, as exemplified by the case of Ese Rita Oruru, a 13-year old Christian girl who was abducted on 12th August, 2015, by Yunusa Dahiru…where she was raped, impregnated and forced to convert to Islam and marry her abductor without her parents’ consent.” This was a girl, if we remember, who voluntarily fell in love with a muslim boy and followed him to the North.

From this single case, he said, “There are more of such cases unnoticed and such minors were forced to deny their faith and married their abductors without any hope of seeing their parents again.”

Prof and his evangelical co-travelers are lucky to be living amidst a very docile Muslim population. The Muslims can show many camps where muslim children are kept by Christian clerics and organizations.

—In 2015 or so, I visited one orphanage operated by a Christian woman from Jalingo who camped many children victims of Boko Haram from Borno State in a building just after the checkpoint before Miango in Plateau State. She refused me contact with the children. 

—the reporter scandal involving the abduction of 21 Muslim children and detention by the ECWA church in Jos until rescued by the DSS in 2022?

— the report of Christian police woman caught with several children she abducted from Sokoto at Abuja motor park on 14/5/2024? 

—the reported police case of 9 muslim children that were kidnapped from Kano and sold in Anambra who were reunited with their parents on 12/10/2019?

—the report of Plateau pastor Dayo Bernard’s child-trafficking syndicate and ACHAD sect (2024–25) by HumAngle Media

— the report of NAPTIP’s 2025 rescue of Kano children in Delta orphanage by Vanguard & Guardian (Nigeria)

—This is not to mention several cases of the systemic North-South child trafficking for domestic work and exploitation as contained in the reports of NBS, UNICEF, ILO, TIP, etc. I can provide Prof with a long list, any day.

Also, the data of gender based violence against Christian women perpetrated by “Fulani militants and Boko Haram” in Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter was only a list of seven women, none of whom was reported killed but taken to the bush for days, denied food, caned or asked to carry out arms for the bandits, according to the publication. Imagine! How does this compare to the enslavement of Muslim women in Yelwan Shendam, their massacre at the turn of every religious conflict for the past 35 years by Christian militia in Northern Nigeria? Does Prof need a list?

Then came the singular mention of Leah Sharibu’s case, the only girl not released among the abductees of GGSS Dapchi. She was used by Prof to prove how Christians are forced to convert to Islam by Boko Haram. How many filled the gap between her and the purported many? No statistics was given by Prof or in the publication.

7. Admission and Concealment

There have been areas in the “Legal Brief” where Prof was forced to admit, albeit reluctantly, Muslim victims in attacks by Boko Haram and bandits or communal clashes in the North without conceding that they are the majority:

— “Boko Haram, therefore, targets Christians, other non-Muslims and even Muslims opposed to their ideologies of Salafi-Jihad”,

— “Attacks and reprisals have been launched by both Christian and Muslim groups in different parts of Plateau State”,

—“Then attacks and clashes occur with mutual casualties. Either or both sides accuse each other of genocide and crimes against humanity. Government looks the other way. Hence, the violence keeps revolving.”

—“The pattern of violence in Nigeria is such that anytime there is an attack against an ethnic or religious group in one part of the country, members of the ethnic or religious group in another part or other parts of the country will react by carrying out retaliatory attacks.”

One would expect that, faced by this reality which he acknowledged, Prof will take the professional lane of advocating for both Muslim and Christian victims and give the balanced data that indicates the share of each side in those attacks. He should also have been bold to mention the atrocities of Christian attackers, including not less than 10 horrendous occasions, that would flatly qualify as war crimes according to the standards he mentioned, some of whom, as in the case of Zamani Lekwot, were even sentenced to death by the Courts.

Also, while speaking about genocide, he has forgotten to mention the cleansing of large Christian-dominated areas of Muslims, over forty settlements in Plateau State alone as at 2012, each following heinous massacres of Muslim inhabitants. Today, it is difficult to come across a Muslim—except for herdsmen— in the Plateau State segment of the Jos-Abuja highway from Mararraban Jama’a outside Jos to the Forest border with Kaduna State. People who did this are the same ones crying genocide!

8. Data

Prof’s lack of data aside, I am more disappointed with the data included in the publication—Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter that included his Legal Brief. Most of it is irrelevant as it does not prove a genocide against Christians.

Consider the data given on “Incidents of Atrocities in Nigeria (December 1, 2019 through March 1, 2020)” that included all kinds of violence, most of them simple civil matters between two Nigerians across the 36 states of the federation and Abuja given in 21 pages (pp 216-235). This is non-probative. Does such ordinary crime data prove any genocide of Christians in Nigeria?

So also is the data titled “Taraba State Deaths: Victims 2015-2019 – Office of the Secretary to the State Government of Taraba” (pp 238-248) that lists registered deaths from all kinds of conflicts including both Christians and Muslims names. How does it prove Christian genocide in Nigeria? Then it did not include all the 726 Muslim Fulani herders massacred in one incident in 2017-2018 by Christian militia and Mambila tribesmen, which is described as genocide by impartial mikitary officials. In the eyes of Christian led Taraba State Government, such amount of deaths did not happen.

The publication also includes data of people killed from Adara and Agatu, Irigwe etc, but it does not contain the corresponding hundreds of Muslims and herdsmen killed by Christians in those conflicts.

As for the maps that appeared later in the publication, nothing shows the number of Christian victims in isolation of Muslim victims. From the areas covered, an objective mind can easily discern that more Muslims than Christians are victims of terrorism and communal conflicts in the North.

The data was obviously presented with a bias, just concentrating on “Boko Haram and Fulani Militants”. Here is a confession made when introducing the data:

 “Our main focus is to demonstrate twenty years of genocide in Nigeria. from the period January 1, 2000 to January 31, 2020. We recognized that there are several components and perpetrators, but we concentrated on two main ACTOR codes: • Boko Haram / ISIS / ISIL / Islamic State / ISWAP / Al-Queda (and) Fulani / Herder / Militant Extremists.”

Thus, the ethnic militia that have perpetrated mass killings against Muslims in Christian dominated areas were not a target of the data. And neither did the data separate Muslims from Christians. So how can it be used to prove genocide? 

In some instances, the perpetrators are classified just as Fulani, without even qualifying them as militants or bandits or whether they are acting in self defence or reprisal. So the whole Fulani as a tribe are guilty. What a data!

9. Recommendations

In the closing section of the Legal Brief, Prof outlined 9 recommendations which give us a resounding proof of what he actually said in 2020:

—“set up an independent, neutral and impartial international commission of inquiry to investigate the causes of recurrent crimes under international law in Nigeria; identify perpetrators and make appropriate recommendations for immediate action pursuant to Articles 33 and 39 of the Charter of the UN”;

—“impose sanctions on State and non-State actors responsible for the series of serious crimes in Nigeria, which have led to mental agony and colossal losses of lives and properties…”;

—“set up a UN-backed tribunal in Nigeria to try perpetrators of the crimes as was the case in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra-Leone…”;

—“the UN Security Council can be pressured by the major powers to refer the case of Nigeria by virtue of its referral powers under Article 13 of the Rome Statute to the ICC”;

— “the UN Security Council passing a Resolution, making call for jihad in any part of the world a barbaric act and a breach of the Charter of the UN which would result into enforcement action under Chapter VII of the Charter, and would also constitute an inchoate act of genocide under the Genocide Convention for the purpose of the OTP’s investigation and prosecution”;

—“mobilize local and foreign non-governmental organizations to put pressure on Nigeria to act in compliance with its international obligations”;

—“Contracting Parties to the Genocide Convention should sue Nigeria at the International Court of Justice for failing to comply with its obligations to prevent genocide and to punish perpetrators in the country in line with Articles 8 and 9 of the Genocide Convention”;

— “military action by the UN, African Union and ECOWAS forces may be taken as a last resort: Article 42 of the Charter of the UN”;

—“once the perpetrators of heinous crimes in Nigeria are identified, other States should apprehend them if they are in their territories and prosecute them (sic) universal jurisdiction.”

To claim that Prof has called for military action against Nigeria is not correct. As a lawyer he laid out the procedure and recommended military action only as a last resort.

So how has Donald Trump promoted it to a first or second resort? Prof has listed a number of steps beginning with investigation, prosecution, judicial pronouncement that there indeed war crimes and genocide have taken place, then enforcement, before military action—“as a last resort”.

I think President Tinubu should dispatch Prof to Washington to help educate Trump that his threat to militarily intervene in Nigeria is a violation of International Law. Or he can ask him to write a new Legal Brief for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to that effect.

What I only find surprising is how Prof himself jumped the gun and concluded that genocide is taking place in Nigeria without waiting for any of the official investigation and judicial pronouncement he recommended. On this charge, I find him guilty of haste.

10. INEC Chair

After the revelation of Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter and his contribution therein, many people have questioned the moral standing of Professor Amupitan to chair our Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, given that it is a position that requires the fairness of a magistrate. Unless he has learnt his lessons, the Legal Brief, if tendered for magisterial examination even in Unijos, would be returned with a poor grade by any impartial examiner. In it, there is more than sufficient material for critics to argue that Prof displays a sectarian bias that borders, in their view, on hate for a section of the Nigerian population.

Ordinarily, in many climes, he woukd have reconsidered his position after this revelation. The president too would have revisited his appointment. But…”kai, Najeriya ce fa”, as Danbello would say. 

Conclusion

From the reaction of many Nigerians to his legal brief, I pray that Prof has learnt his lesson. He is now in a position where he must embrace all Nigerians, including those he sufficiently demonized in the brief. INEC headquarters is not an ecclesiastical building. It is not CAN headquarters. It is also neither the office of an academic in Jos nor the chamber of a legal practitioner waiting for recruitment by a client. It is a station for justice to all Nigerians. I know that this challenges his orientation and background but it is one which the nation hopes he will overcome during his tenure.

Meanwhile, he must—ironically—join other officials in telling his American partners directly or through writing a new brief that there is no Christian genocide in Nigeria. If Tinubu would perchance hear pim from him crying genocide again, he is on his own. Tam!

12 November 2025

————-

LIST OF SPURIOUS STATEMENTS

Below are 49 statements from Prof. Amupitan’s legal brief (as published in Nigeria’s Silent Slaughter report) that appear wild, exaggerated, or unsupported by credible evidence.

1. It is a notorious fact that there is perpetration of crimes under international law in Nigeria, particularly crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide. (p. 36)

2. One word that the Nigerian authorities and international investigators and rapporteurs have not mentioned (or simply refuse to mention) in respect of the protracted violence in Nigeria is ‘genocide.’ Is this a deliberate omission or an oversight? (p. 36)

3. The alleged involvement of the State and non-State actors in the commission of crimes under international law in Nigeria has complicated an already complex situation. Consequently, the situation beckons the urgent need for a neutral and impartial third-party intervention, especially the UN and its key organs… (p. 39)

4. (There is an) urgent need for… intervention, especially the UN and its key organs, the military and economic superpowers, and regional or sub-regional organisations… (p. 39)

5. Prof. Amupitan declared that crimes under international law – including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity – were being perpetrated in Nigeria. (p. 36)

6. The Fulani herdsmen are predominantly Muslims and exhibit fundamentalist tendencies substantially similar to those of the Boko Haram sect. (p. 42)

7. The Boko Haram sect is a desire for the Islamisation of Nigeria. The Fulani ethnic militants, on their part, have engaged in the same anti-Christian violence as their Boko Haram counterparts.” (p. 47)

8. Since it is the agenda of the Fulani to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, they have used the machinery of the State, deliberately handed over to them by the colonialists, to advance their cause at all times. (p. 72)

9. The period of the military regime was used maximally to create States and Local Government Areas, and set boundaries, in a manner that gives economic and political advantages to the Hausa-Fulani ethnic group. (p. 72)

10. The military regime ensured that major strategic appointments went to the Hausa-Fulani group, while their promotions in the public service, especially in the military, police, and customs, were accelerated. (p. 72)

11. The well-orchestrated plan paid off for them because the other ethnic groups did not realise their agenda to Islamise the whole of Nigeria, and by the time the plan was being understood by some… the damage had already become too much. (p. 72)

12. The military, police, customs, and the public service as a whole have been taken over completely, with Islamic fundamentalists planted in strategic positions to supervise the final phase of the agenda. (p. 72)

13. Boko Haram and Fulani herdsmen [are] responsible for an orgy of bloodbath and massive displacements in many States across Nigeria. (p. 36)

14. Although Boko Haram had been formally designated a terrorist organisation in 2013, the Fulani herdsmen — whom he directly accused of orchestrating widespread massacres — had not been officially recognized as terrorists, but rather ‘labelled a terrorist group.’” (p. 36)

15. There is evidence that genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed by both State and non-State actors. (p. 39)

16. The Nigerian Government has not demonstrated sufficient willpower to deal with the crises; hence they have persisted and proliferated. As there is delay in taking drastic actions, lives are being lost, thereby inching the country’s destination to another Holocaust, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Darfur and Myanmar. Can the country survive it? (p. 108)

17. Nigeria risks repeating the mistakes of Rwanda and Sudan, where international hesitation led to mass atrocities. (p. 108)

18. Nigeria’s constitutional failure to protect its citizens has made international intervention both a legal and moral necessity. (p. 92)

19. The Fulani militants have engaged in a campaign of killing Christians in the Middle Belt Region of Nigeria, where their activities have been most felt, and indeed other parts of the country. (p. 47)

20. The victims of the crises are mainly the Christian population and the minority ethnic groups in Nigeria, and hence the need for remedial actions under international law. (p. 39)

21. In tracing the roots of Nigeria’s ethno-religious conflicts, Amupitan linked modern-day violence to the Fulani-led jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio in 1804, describing it as a ‘full-blown Islamization agenda. (p. 32)

22. The Fulani elite in government and security agencies have continued to manipulate international opinion and deceive foreign governments into believing that the violence is not a jihad to Islamize Nigeria. (p. 74)

23. Following the 19th century jihad of Uthman Dan Fodio, the Hausa territories were conquered and the Sokoto Caliphate established… The success of the jihad was one of religious triumphalism that aimed at expanding the caliphate to other parts of Nigeria in an irrevocable bid to dip the Quran into the Atlantic Ocean in Lagos. (p. 32)

24. He asserted that the caliphate thereafter became a dominant force in the North, and that subsequent governments had continued to protect its influence through political arrangements. (p. 34)

25. The IDPs have become stateless in their own country. (p. 73)

26. Churches have been desecrated and destroyed in large numbers – over 13,000 churches were reported to have been closed or destroyed in the Northeast alone during the Boko Haram insurgency (2009–2014). (p. 46)

27. Over 60,000 people have been brutally killed since 2001… This conflict is six times deadlier than Boko Haram’s insurgency.

28. The persistent silence from the government is further encouragement to Fulani militants to pillage and occupy land and to kill anyone who resists. The government’s response… reinforces [them] as a group of attackers without criminal repercussions. (p. 72)

29. Fulani herdsmen, with the support of government officials, have occupied lands belonging to indigenous communities and forcefully driven away the original inhabitants. (p. 74)

30. Amnesty International reported that Nigerian security forces committed war crimes in their campaign, including extrajudicial killings and torture, yet no one has been held accountable. (p. 83)

31. The 1804 jihad has now manifested as … Boko Haram, Fulani herdsmen’s attacks and even the Sharia controversy.” (p. 35)

32. Hence this formal and urgent request for international intervention in dealing with the pogrom and attacks against the Christians and minority groups in Nigeria. (p. 35)

33. There is no source of international law under which a State … can intervene … except with the consent of the forum State. (p. 39)

34. Fulani herdsmen take advantage of the fact that their tribesmen control the Federal Government and most of the State Governments in Northern Nigeria. (p. 72)

35. The Federal Government … accepted that the kidnappers in every part of Nigeria are the Fulani herdsmen. (p. 73)

36. Miyetti Allah often takes responsibility for most of the killings by the herdsmen. (p. 73)

37. What more is to be said of State complicity and the actual agenda to fully Islamize Nigeria … This is the real reason for the violence. (p. 73)

38. Fulani elites have literally appropriated the executive, legislative and judicial powers in the country. (p. 75)

39. Communities are] immediately occupied and renamed … followed by the appointment of an Emir. (p. 75)

40. Fulani mercenaries engage in ‘retail killings’ of Christians and other ethnic or religious minorities. (p. 75)

41. This is one expansionist strategy … to depopulate many Christian communities in the Nigerian north central. (p. 76)

42. A Fulani person looks more or less like the ‘Caucasoid’ race. (p. 51)

43. The fusion of Hausa and Fulani into ‘Hausa-Fulani’ … is a grave error. (p. 51)

44. Colonialists handed over a polity fraught with dishonest census figures, political gerrymandering and favouritism … in favour of the Northern Region. (p. 34)

45. Impose sanctions … by the UN … as well as other … sovereign States pursuant to Article 52 of the Charter of the UN. (p. 109)

46. Set up a UN-backed tribunal in Nigeria … as was the case in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Sierra-Leone. (p. 109)

47. (Have the Security Council pass a resolution) making call for jihad in any part of the world a barbaric act and a breach of the Charter … (an) inchoate act of genocide. (p. 109)

48. Military action by the UN, African Union and ECOWAS forces may be taken as a last resort: Article 42 of the Charter of the UN. (p. 110)

49. Other States should apprehend (Nigerian) perpetrators … and prosecute them (under) universal jurisdiction. (p. 110)

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 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 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