Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu

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

By Muhammad Abubakar

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has withdrawn clemency earlier granted to Maryam Sanda and other convicts of serious offences following a review of the federal pardon list.

Sanda, sentenced to death in 2020 for killing her husband, was among those removed from the list after consultations with the Council of State and public feedback.

Presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said the review was guided by the gravity of certain crimes, public sensitivity, and the need to uphold justice for victims and society.

Offenders convicted of kidnapping, drug trafficking, human trafficking, fraud, and unlawful possession of firearms were also excluded from the clemency list.

President Tinubu further ordered the relocation of the Secretariat of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Prerogative of Mercy to the Federal Ministry of Justice and directed the Attorney-General to issue new guidelines for future exercises.

The President reaffirmed his administration’s commitment to judicial reforms and maintaining public confidence in Nigeria’s justice system.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

The Defence Headquarters (DHQ) has strongly denied an online report linking the cancellation of Nigeria’s 65th Independence Anniversary parade to an alleged coup attempt.

In a press release signed by Brigadier General Tukur Gusau, the DHQ described the publication as “false, malicious, and intended to cause unnecessary tension.” 

The military high command stated that the parade was cancelled to allow President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to attend a strategic bilateral meeting abroad and to enable the Armed Forces to sustain their operations against terrorism, insurgency, and banditry.

The statement also addressed the recent arrest of sixteen officers, clarifying that they are part of a routine investigation for professional misconduct. The DHQ assured that an investigative panel has been constituted and its findings will be made public.

Reaffirming its loyalty, the Armed Forces declared its unwavering commitment to the Constitution and the Federal Government, urging the public to disregard the falsehood being circulated by “purveyors of misinformation and enemies of our nation.” 

The statement concluded with the firm declaration, “Democracy is forever.”

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu 

When President Bola Ahmed Tinubu announced a presidential pardon for 175 convicted persons across the country, Nigerians received the news with mixed emotions. But among the list, one name struck a raw national nerve: Maryam Sanda, the woman convicted of killing her husband, Bilyaminu Bello, in what remains one of the country’s most chilling domestic murder cases.

For many, it was not just another item in the roll call of mercy; it was a haunting reminder of how justice can sometimes be undone by power, privilege, and politics. The presidential prerogative of mercy, though constitutional, has now become a moral battlefield where the grief of the victim’s family collides with the influence of the powerful.

The late Bilyaminu Bello’s story is a tragic one. Murdered in cold blood by his wife in 2017, his death tore through the conscience of the nation. From the Federal Capital Territory High Court to the Court of Appeal, and finally to the Supreme Court in 2023, every judicial panel reaffirmed her guilt and upheld the death sentence. For many Nigerians, that long, painstaking journey through the courts was justice done and seen to be done.

But when the same Maryam Sanda walked free through the gates of presidential pardon barely two years later, the wounds of that tragedy reopened. In a country where thousands of convicts languish for years without the benefit of mercy, her release looked less like compassion and more like privilege dressed in forgiveness.

What deepened public unease was not just the pardon itself, but the drama that followed. As the late Bilyaminu’s family protested the decision, a man claiming to be his biological father suddenly appeared before journalists in Abuja beside Maryam’s own father to bless the President’s gesture. He pleaded that the woman should be allowed to raise his “grandchildren.”

Yet, investigative accounts reveal that this man, Alhaji Ahmed Bello Isa, had been absent from his son’s entire life. A retired storekeeper from the old Sokoto State, he reportedly disappeared shortly after the boy’s birth in 1981, never to return, not during his son’s childhood, not during his marriages, and not even during the long, high-profile murder trial that went all the way to the Supreme Court. His sudden reappearance, looking frail and poor, has been widely viewed as an orchestrated spectacle to give moral cover to an otherwise controversial pardon.

Meanwhile, Dr Bello Haliru Mohammed, OFR, the Ɗangaladiman Gwandu and uncle who raised Bilyaminu from childhood, issued a deeply moving statement titled “When Prerogative of Mercy Inflicts Inexorable Pain.” In it, he lamented that the pardon had reopened the family’s wounds, describing it as “the worst injustice any family could be made to go through.” He reminded the nation that the accused had shown “no remorse even for a fleeting moment” throughout her trial, and that her release mocked the memory of a life lost in cold blood.

Dr Bello’s words resonate beyond his family. They echo the silent frustration of many Nigerians who see the selective use of presidential mercy as a reflection of the country’s deeper moral decay. In this system, the powerful can always find their way out, while ordinary citizens drown in bureaucracy and neglect.

At this point, I must confess that I, too, find the whole episode unsettling. Mercy, in its truest form, should heal, not wound. It should reconcile, not re-traumatise. What purpose does clemency serve when it is perceived as a reward for influence rather than repentance? How do we explain to millions of Nigerians that justice can be reversed overnight, not because the convict was wrongly judged, but because connections spoke louder than conscience?

The case of Maryam Sanda is not just about a family’s pain; it is a mirror reflecting the cracks in our collective sense of fairness. When the law becomes a ladder, only the privileged can climb; justice loses its soul. When mercy is granted without genuine repentance, it ceases to be mercy; it becomes mockery.

Perhaps the President acted out of compassion, perhaps on counsel. But genuine compassion would have considered the pain of the victim’s family, the moral lessons for society, and the need to preserve faith in the justice system. Instead, what we have witnessed is a decision that reopens grief and reinforces the notion that justice in Nigeria bends easily for those with the right surname.

Now, as the nation debates and families mourn afresh, one cannot help but reflect on Dr Bello’s final words: that ultimate justice lies only with the Supreme Judge — Allah. That truth should haunt every conscience involved in this affair. Because when human mercy wounds justice, divine judgment will, in the end, heal what man has broken.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu writes on disaster management and national development.

By Bilyamin Abdulmumin, PhD

One of my grandfather’s wives, Hajiya Ba’u, survived to live with us till last year, when she passed away. She was fond of sharing history, and in me she found a devoted student. One particular period stuck with her was the early years of her marriage, which was a few years before Nigerian Independence. She once narrated to me how oranges and bananas were considered costly gifts at the time. They only got to see such fruits when my grandfather travelled to Ibadan; these fruits were shared meticulously, as they were seen once in a blue moon.

These fruits, which were once rare luxuries, have now become common in every household, regardless of the season. One can wake up at any odd hour, walk to the main street, and easily find them. Both oranges and bananas are now available in many varieties. The sweetest orange is Dan Boko, named after its place of origin, while the sweetest banana is the variety known as Senior; it has a taste beyond ordinary bananas. Beyond oranges and bananas, fruits like apples, pineapples, and coconuts have also become ubiquitous, and the richness of fruits reaches its peak in the form of fruit salad. People of the 1960s could only dream of fruit salad in Heaven.

Hajiya Ba’u also mentioned that soap was a rare luxury in those days, and they would only use it once in a while. The equivalent of soap, if I didn’t forget, is Bagaruwa (Gum Arabic tree); the pods and bark of this tree contains substance called saponins, like in the case of sodium salts of fatty acids of modern soap, the hydrophobic part of the saponins binds to oils on skin, clothes, or utensils while hydrophilic part binds to water, this creates micelles, which trap dirt and wash them away. Some rural areas still use Bagaruwa as a means of cleaning. In other words, these rural areas are just as advanced as my community of the 1960s. This is why going to rural areas is reminiscent of time-travelling.

Today, whether it’s table soap or liquid soap, it comes in various types, sizes, colours, and fragrances. My memory was reset in 2019 when I lodged at Hotel 17 in Kaduna. There, I saw just how far the customisation of everyday items had gone: single-use soaps, single-use rubbing Vaseline, single-use sugar, single-use perfume, milk, and more. People of the 1960s would think such convenience could only be found in Heaven.

My grandma was also nostalgic about the advancement of packaging. Polyethene (black nylon, etc) was non-existent in those days, so instead they used Tumfafiya—a broad leaf large enough to serve as a wrapper. In fact, I myself bought zogale da kuli (Moringa oleifera and groundnut cake) wrapped in Tumfafiya. In a chemical process called polymerisation, thousands of two-carbon alcohols (ethylene) are woven together to form polyethene. That is more or less like laying thousands of bricks together to make a block. Thanks to the Polyethene revolution, it has now taken over, from shopping bags to “leda” bags, “Santana” bags, water sachets, milk sachets, and stretch wraps in different sizes, brands, and designs. Our packaging revolution extends to cardboard boxes, aluminium foils, plastic containers, and resealable pouches. Those living in the 1960s could only have been left speechless.

Far back in the 1960s, donkeys and camels were the standard vehicles. So, when my Fiqh Sheikh travelled to Zamfara in the 2000s, we only closed for one day. He reminded us that in earlier times, such a journey would have required at least two weeks. Similarly, cellular communication, once a dream of the 1960s, now happens in a split second. One day in the lab, a colleague, who was fond of observing social change, sent a message to England using his mobile phone. Our conversation would revolve around the miracle: the efficiency of sending the message at a negligible cost of only about ten naira.

The paradox is this: even as social change is undeniable in contemporary Nigeria, the strength of our institutions has nosedived and been reversed. A small clinic in a district in the 1960s would treat patients better than what is obtainable in our modern general hospitals. Teachers, even at the primary school level, were treated like kings. We are still in touch with the rural communities my father taught in the seventies and eighties. In one viral clip, late former President Buhari recalled how immediately after secondary school graduation, he was offered a managerial job, a new motorbike, and a competitive salary. 

Late Chief Audu Ogbe, in a Daily Trust reminiscence, noted that in the 1960s, the Central Government even borrowed from the Native Authorities, which now became local government authorities. A former permanent secretary from Kebbi State once told me how, during his days at ABU in the 1980s, students had meal tickets and even their clothes washed. All these examples point to one fact: institutions were working then.

With remarkable social change beyond recognition and technological advancement beyond imagination, if our institutional trajectory is redirected, Nigeria could go to the moon.

Happy Independence Day.

By Muhammad Sulaiman

The Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) has lauded President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for granting a posthumous pardon to the late Major-General Mamman Jiya Vatsa, a former Nigerian Army officer and acclaimed poet.

In a statement signed by ANA President, Dr Usman Oladipo Akanbi, and General Secretary, Dame Joan Oji, PhD, the Association described the gesture as a “commendable act of national healing” and a recognition of Vatsa’s enduring contributions to Nigerian arts and literature.

General Vatsa, who was executed in 1986 over alleged involvement in a coup plot, was one of ANA’s early leaders and a strong patron of the literary community. He was instrumental in securing the land for the Mamman Vatsa Writers’ Village in Abuja, a landmark project of the Association.

While expressing appreciation for the pardon, ANA maintained that Vatsa was wrongfully convicted, noting that his trial and execution were the result of “deliberate malice orchestrated by a perceived close associate.” The Association said the presidential pardon serves as a vindication of Vatsa’s innocence.

ANA further appealed to President Tinubu to direct that all the rights, privileges, and entitlements due to the late General be paid to his family as a gesture of justice, closure, and recognition of his service to the nation.

The Association concluded by thanking the President “for finally wiping the tears of the Mamman Vatsa family,” adding that the act will forever immortalise the legacy of the distinguished poet-soldier and patron of Nigerian literature.

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has granted a presidential pardon to several inmates across the country, including Maryam Sanda, who was sentenced to death in 2020 for killing her husband, Bilyamin Bello, in 2017. Sanda, aged 37, had spent six years and eight months at the Suleja Medium Security Custodial Centre before her release.

Her family had earlier appealed for clemency, citing her exemplary conduct in prison, genuine remorse, and commitment to a reformed lifestyle. They also argued that her release would serve the best interests of her two young children.

The presidential pardon, announced by the Ministry of Interior, also included other notable inmates such as former lawmaker Farouk Lawan and businessman Herbert Merculay, among others.

Officials stated that the decision was part of President Tinubu’s broader initiative to decongest correctional facilities and promote restorative justice, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration of reformed inmates into society.