President Donald Trump

By Hadiza Abdulkadir

Venezuela’s opposition leader Maria Corina Machado has said she would consider giving her Nobel Peace Prize to former U.S. President Donald Trump, drawing swift clarification from the Nobel Institute that such a move would not be possible.

Machado made the remark during a public discussion about international support for Venezuela’s democratic struggle, suggesting Trump’s foreign policy pressure on Caracas deserved recognition. Her comments sparked widespread reaction on social media and prompted questions about whether a Nobel Prize can be transferred.

In response, the Nobel Institute said the rules governing the Nobel Peace Prize are clear and final: once awarded, the prize cannot be given, reassigned, or donated to another individual. “The decision is final,” the institute said, underscoring that the prize is granted solely to the named laureate, to her in this case.

Machado, a former National Assembly member, was barred by authorities aligned with Nicolas Maduro from running in Venezuela’s 2024 general election.

She backed a stand‑in candidate widely considered to have won the vote, although Maduro claimed victory. Ballot audits by independent observers revealed irregularities in the official results.

By Abdullahi Mukhtar Algasgaini

A directive from BBC News editors instructing journalists not to describe the arrest of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as a “kidnapping” has sparked controversy, placing the broadcaster at odds with U.S. President Donald Trump’s own terminology.

Socialist commentator Owen Jones revealed an internal BBC memo on X, which stated that while journalists could use “captured” (if attributed to U.S. sources) or “seized,” they must “Avoid using ‘Kidnapped.’

“This editorial guidance clashes with comments from President Trump. When asked about Venezuelan Interim President Delcy Rodríguez’s use of the term “kidnapping” for Maduro’s detention, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One, “It’s alright. It’s not a bad term.”

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, pleaded not guilty in a New York court to narco-terrorism and cocaine importation conspiracy charges.

During the hearing, Maduro declared he was “kidnapped” and “a prisoner of war,” while Flores asserted her status as Venezuela’s first lady.

Following the operation, Delcy Rodríguez, Maduro’s former vice president, was sworn in as Venezuela’s new leader in Caracas. Trump asserted the U.S. was now “in charge” of Venezuela, warning its interim government to cooperate or pay a “very big price.”

U.S. President Donald J. Trump has claimed that the United States carried out a “powerful and deadly” military strike against ISIS targets in northwest Nigeria.

In a statement released on Thursday night, Trump said the operation was conducted under his direction as commander in chief and targeted ISIS fighters accused of killing civilians, particularly Christians. He described the strikes as highly successful and warned that further military action would follow if the violence continues.

There has been no independent confirmation of the operation from U.S. defense officials, and no details have been provided regarding the exact locations, casualties, or scope of the strikes.

As of the time of this report, the Nigerian government has not issued any official statement responding to or confirming the claims.

Dr Ebenezer Obadare, a Senior Fellow for Africa Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), recently testified before a joint briefing of the United States Congress on the security crisis in Nigeria. Given CFR’s extraordinary influence on U.S. foreign policy, as its analysts brief the Congress, the State Department, and the White House, the accuracy and balance of Dr Obadare’s testimony matter significantly.

At the briefing, U.S. lawmakers and witnesses made one demand that every responsible Nigerian, Muslim or Christian, would be happy with: that Nigeria must disarm armed militias and prosecute attackers. The renewed commitment we are now seeing from the Nigerian government, including airstrikes against armed militias, the planned police and military recruitment, and the declaration of a national security emergency are all a response to the mounting U.S. pressure. On this point, American engagement has been productive.

However, Dr Obadare went far beyond the reasonable. After acknowledging the recent steps taken by President Tinubu, he nevertheless insisted that “Washington must keep up the pressure.” To him, U.S. leverage should not only be used to combat Boko Haram but to pressure the Nigerian president to abolish Sharia criminal law in twelve northern states and disband Hisbah commissions across the northern region. This framing is problematic on several counts.

First, it portrays Nigeria not as a sovereign state but as a dependent client whose legal and cultural system must be restructured via external coercion. This is not only intellectually careless; it is politically reckless. Nigeria’s constitutional debates, including the place of Sharia within a federal arrangement, cannot be resolved through directives from Washington. These are matters rooted in decades of negotiation, legal precedent, historical realities, and democratic choice. Such complexity cannot be wished away by foreign pressure or reduced to simplistic talking points about religious persecution. Sharia was introduced between 1999 and 2001 through public consultation and mass popular demand by the local citizens in northern Nigeria, who are Muslims. Subsequently, it was formalised and enacted into law by the various State Houses of Assembly.

Second, Obadare’s argument misdiagnoses the root causes of violence in the north. Boko Haram and ISWAP do not derive their ideology from the Sharia systems implemented by northern states since 1999. In fact, Boko Haram explicitly rejects these systems as insufficient, impure, and corrupted by democracy. They consider northern governors apostates precisely because they operate within a secular constitution. The group’s origins lie in violent extremism, socio-economic marginalisation, and the 2009 extrajudicial killing of the group’s founder, Mohammed Yusuf. It has nothing to do with the Sharia framework implemented by the twelve northern states. In fact, Boko Haram rejects and condemns these state Sharia systems as illegitimate, and this is why the majority of their victims are Muslims themselves. 

It is therefore analytically false to imply that Sharia criminal law fuels this insurgency. This narrative does not withstand even a basic historical timeline. The Maitatsine insurgency of the 1970s, whose ideology and violence closely resemble Boko Haram, predated the introduction of Sharia in the early 2000s by decades. To frame Sharia as the catalyst of terrorism is therefore a misreading of history and to locate causality where it does not exist.

Third, the call to disband Hisbah groups ignores their actual function and constitution. Hisbah institutions are state-established moral enforcement agencies regulated by local laws. They are not terrorist actors, militias, or insurgent organisations. They are contrary to Dr Obadare’s claims that they “impose extremist ideology, enforce forced conversions, and operate with near-total impunity.” These assertions either misrepresent the facts to unfairly tarnish their reputation or reflect intellectual laziness that risks misleading American policymakers. In doing so, they also demonise millions of peaceful Nigerian Muslims who regard Sharia as a legitimate component of their cultural and moral identity.

Finally, Dr Obadare’s testimony, intentionally or not, reinforces a narrative in Washington that sees Nigeria’s crisis primarily through the lens of religious conflict rather than the multi-dimensional reality it is, that is, a mixture of terrorism, banditry, state failure, local grievances, arms proliferation, and climate-driven resource conflicts in the form of farmer-herder crisis. Oversimplification of this serious problem does not aid victims. It distorts U.S. policy and encourages punitive measures that could destabilise fragile communities further and restrict the fundamental rights of millions of Muslims to exercise their faith and adhere to the guidance of Shari’a in their personal and communal lives. 

Nigeria faces serious security challenges amid years of leadership neglect. We genuinely need pressure to put the leaders on their toes, but not the kind rooted in calculated distortion. There is a need for leadership accountability, but not at the expense of Nigeria’s sovereignty. And we need a partnership with the United States in the areas of intelligence gathering, military capabilities and a mutually beneficial partnership. 

The United States should not base its engagement on flawed analyses made by experts such as Dr Ebenezer Obadare, which risk misrepresenting Nigeria’s realities, undermining local institutions, and prescribing solutions that could exacerbate rather than resolve the country’s complex security challenges. Partnering with the Nigerian government enables a tailor-made approach to effectively address these challenges, rather than relying on experts who have long been out of touch with Nigerian realities beyond what they read in media reports.

The Nigerian state must do more, no doubt. But analysts like Dr Obadare must also do better. Nigeria deserves policy analysis grounded in accuracy, proportionality, and respect for the complexities of a plural society; not sweeping prescriptions that collapse constitutional debate into counterterrorism and treat millions of northern Muslims as collateral in the process.

Ibrahiym A. El-Caleel writes from Nigeria and can be reached at caleel2009@gmail.com.

By Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu

When Zohran Mamdani, an Ugandan-born politician of Indian descent who migrated to the United States, emerged victorious as the new Mayor of New York, it became more than just another electoral story from America. His triumph resonated across continents, sparking global conversations on representation, inclusion, and the reawakening of civic trust in politics. For many, Mamdani’s victory symbolised a powerful statement that character, vision, and authenticity still matter in the age of polarisation.

Mamdani’s path to City Hall was anything but easy. As an immigrant, a Muslim, and a progressive voice, he faced a storm of hostility from powerful circles. President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk, among others, were said to have thrown their weight behind his opponents, amplifying fears that his immigrant roots and socialist ideals made him unfit for leadership. Yet, against all odds, Mamdani not only survived the onslaught but emerged stronger, armed with nothing but a clear message of hope, justice, and inclusiveness.

What made Mamdani’s campaign remarkable was not just his defiance of elite power, but his connection with ordinary people. His grassroots outreach, his emphasis on social housing, education, climate action, and racial justice found resonance among New York’s diverse electorate. He spoke to their realities, not to their fears. In doing so, he rekindled faith in participatory democracy, the belief that leadership should reflect the people’s shared struggles and aspirations, not the privilege of a few.

It is no coincidence that Mamdani’s rise echoes that of other reform-minded figures who emerged from outside political establishments. His campaign defied the dominance of corporate funding and media bias, relying instead on volunteerism, small donations, and community-based mobilisation. That model reminded the world that authenticity, not affluence, is what truly earns public trust.

Back home in Nigeria, Mamdani’s story holds profound lessons. Our political system remains heavily tilted in favour of the wealthy and the well-connected. Elections are often a contest of money, not merit. The idea of a young, visionary leader without financial backing or godfather support ascending to power still sounds utopian. Yet his victory invites reflection. What if Nigerian politics began to reward credibility over connections? What if the masses recognised their collective power to shape outcomes beyond inducements and ethnic sentiments?

Mamdani’s triumph also reinforces the value of civic enlightenment. His message cut through misinformation because citizens were engaged and aware. In Nigeria, the recurring crisis of leadership is not only about corrupt elites but also about the disempowered electorate that allows manipulation to thrive. Real change begins when citizens see themselves as active participants in governance, not passive observers of elite bargains.

Beyond politics, his story underscores the beauty of diversity as a source of strength. America, despite its contradictions, remains a land where the son of immigrants can become a city’s chief executive. In Nigeria, where diversity often fuels division, Mamdani’s ascent serves as a reminder that inclusion is not a weakness but a path to unity. The more our institutions reflect the country’s social mosaic, the more legitimacy they command.

The lesson from New York’s new Mayor is therefore clear: leadership that listens, represents, and uplifts will always triumph over propaganda, money, and prejudice. For Nigeria, it is not enough to envy its victory; we must internalise the principles that made it possible: sincerity, civic participation, and justice. Mamdani’s win is not just a political event; it is a mirror reflecting what genuine democracy could look like when people, not power, decide.

Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu is a journalist and syndicate writer based in Abuja.

By Zayyad I. Muhammad

On Saturday, November 1, 2025, U.S. President Donald J. Trump made his famous “guns-a-blazing” remark and described Nigeria as “the now disgraced country.”

On Sunday, November 2, he repeated that the United States could deploy troops to Nigeria or launch airstrikes to stop alleged killings.

In what appears to be a reaction to Trump’s comments, terrorists and bandits in Nigeria have intensified attacks, especially the mass abduction of pupils, students, and worshippers.

On November 17, bandits abducted 25 female students from Government Girls’ Comprehensive Secondary School, Maga, Kebbi State.

On November 18, daredevil gunmen attacked Christ Apostolic Church, Oke-Isegba, Eruku, kidnapping 38 worshippers during an evening service.

On Friday, November 21, gunmen raided St. Mary’s School in the Papiri community of Niger State’s Agwara District, abducting 215 pupils and 12 teachers.

That same day, after Trump appeared on Fox News and declared, “I think Nigeria is a disgrace,” reports emerged that ISWAP fighters had abducted 13 teenage girls working on farmlands in Askira-Uba, Borno State.

Armed groups across Nigeria have long understood the symbolic power of their targets. But the timing and composition of these attacks suggest deeper motives:

Three separate days. Four mass kidnappings. Hundreds of victims. Mostly female victims. This is not a coincidence. This is a strategy.

Observers cite four major reasons:

1.  To escalate the situation and attract international attention. Nothing provokes global outrage like the mass abduction of schoolgirls or worshippers. Terrorists crave visibility, especially when a powerful international figure has threatened intervention.

2.  To instil fear and embarrass the government , psychological warfare, so to speak. Targeting female students and worshippers strikes directly at the heart of communities. Schools and places of worship are supposed to be sanctuaries; when they are violated, society trembles.

3.  To use abducted victims, especially girls, as human shields. If the U.S. were ever to conduct air strikes, the bandits and terrorists understand the protective value of having dozens of young female hostages in their custody.

4.  Ransom opportunities: To exploit heightened international interest as leverage for ransom or negotiation. Heightened American interest increases the “value” of hostages. Criminal groups see an opportunity to negotiate for large payouts.

President Trump’s threats have become a local weapon for the terrorists. To be fair to President Trump, he may not intend it, but his sensational remarks have become ammunition in the arsenal of Nigeria’s armed groups. They interpret his words as an opportunity or a provocation and recalibrate their tactics accordingly.

Also, to be fair to President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he or his government cannot control the statements made by foreign leaders. Still, they can control how prepared the country is for the consequences. This moment demands urgency. The Nigerian delegation to the US, led by Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, is engaged in sterling diplomatic work. Thus, apart from local efforts, this visit indicates to the Nigerian leadership that a well-planned diplomatic strategy can prevent reckless foreign commentary from escalating domestic crises.

Local and international efforts must work together!

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

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 Umar Sani Adamu, 

For a long time, Western media outlets, foreign politicians, and advocacy groups have repeatedly described Nigeria as the scene of an ongoing “Christian genocide” at the hands of Muslims, particularly Fulani herdsmen. The charge is serious, emotional, and widely circulated. However, a closer examination of the facts on the ground reveals a much more complex and painful truth: the primary victims of the country’s deadliest insecurity crisis, armed banditry, are overwhelmingly northern Muslims.

Multiple independent investigations have found no evidence of a systematic, religiously motivated campaign to exterminate Christians. A 2024 BBC Global Disinformation Unit report, fact-checks by AFP and Al Jazeera, and even cautious statements from Open Doors, the Christian persecution monitor frequently quoted by genocide advocates, have all warned that the term “genocide” is being misused and exaggerated in the Nigerian context.

The violence plaguing the country is real, but it is predominantly criminal, not confessional. Since 2015, armed banditry, kidnapping for ransom, cattle rustling, village raids and mass killings have turned Zamfara, Katsina, Kaduna, Sokoto and parts of Niger State into killing fields. These states are 90–98 per cent Muslim. Most bandits are ethnic Fulani Muslims who prey primarily on Hausa Muslim farming communities.

Complex numbers tell the story that western headlines rarely do:  

– Zamfara State alone recorded over 1,200 banditry-related deaths in 2023,  almost all Muslim.  

– In the first nine months of 2025, more than 2,800 people were killed by bandits across the North West, according to the Nigerian Atrocities Documentation Project. The vast majority were Muslim.  

– The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom stated in its 2025 report that banditry “disproportionately affects Muslim-majority areas”.

While Christians have suffered real losses in Middle Belt farmer-herder clashes and church attacks, the scale and frequency pale in comparison to the daily carnage in the Muslim North West.

 When the clergy cross the line

This month, Plateau State Police Command arrested a Catholic priest for allegedly supplying AK-47 rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition to bandit gangs operating across Plateau, Kaduna and Bauchi. Weapons recovered from the cleric have reportedly been linked to recent deadly raids. He was paraded on November 12.

It is not an isolated case. In February 2025, another Reverend Father, a deaconess and several church members were arrested in Taraba for allegedly running arms to both Boko Haram and bandit groups. Similar arrests of Christian clergy and lay workers have occurred in Benue and Nasarawa.

Social media reaction was swift and furious: “They label every Fulani man a terrorist, yet a Reverend Father is caught red-handed arming the same killers,” wrote one widely shared post.

Why the false narrative endures

Images of burnt churches and grieving Christian widows travel fast on global networks. Footage of torched Muslim villages in remote Zurmi or Tsafe rarely does. Poor, Hausa-speaking northerners lack the lobbying machinery that amplifies Middle Belt voices in Washington and London.

As one northern governor privately admitted: “When they shout ‘Christian genocide’ abroad, the grants go to NGOs in Jos and Enugu — never to the millions of displaced Muslims rotting in camps in Gusau and Birnin Gwari.”

The way forward

Nigeria’s crisis is one of state failure, poverty, climate stress and organised crime not a holy war. Treating banditry as jihad only deepens division and delays solutions. Community policing, economic revival in the rural North, and ruthless prosecution of arms suppliers regardless of collar or turban offer the only realistic path to peace.

Until the world stops peddling a convenient myth, the people bearing the heaviest burden — ordinary Muslim farmers, women and children of the North West — will continue to bleed in silence.

There is no Christian genocide in Nigeria. There is, however, a predominantly Muslim tragedy that the world has chosen not to see.

Umar Sani Adamu can be reached via umarhashidu1994@gmail.com.

By Abubakar AbdusSalam Muhammad (Baban Gwale).

Dr Audu Bulama Bukarti is one of the individuals I admire most in today’s Nigeria.

Recently, during the deeply thought-provoking Zoom discussion organised by Professor Toyin Falola on President Donald Trump’s comments about Nigeria, Bulama once again demonstrated remarkable clarity, courage, and sincerity. His contributions stood out with intellectual depth and honesty, and he represented our nation with dignity and unwavering principle.

Beyond his powerful voice in national discourse, Dr Bukarti is an expert legal practitioner, a meticulous researcher, an exceptional analyst, and a genuine freedom fighter whose work continues to inspire countless Nigerians.

What truly sets him apart is his unshakable commitment to Islam and truth. I recall during an episode of Fashin Baki on President Tinubu’s recent pardons, when he was asked about the case of DCP Abba Kyari and other inmates. His response was firm, principled, and full of integrity:

“I don’t talk on anything that contradicts Islam whatsoever.” These words reflect the heart of a man guided by faith before anything else, a man whose compass does not bend under pressure or public opinion.

A true Nigerian, a proud Muslim, a committed Northerner, a brilliant mind, and indeed a one-man army “KAI KAƊAI GAYYA”

I am deeply proud of him, not only for his intellectual contributions, but for who he is as a true Muslim brother whose sincerity, courage, and patriotism strengthen my love and respect for him.

May Allah preserve him upon goodness, protect him, and continue to make his voice a source of benefit, justice, and guidance for our beloved nation.

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.”