The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigeria

  • Reclaiming Nigeria’s sovereignty: Trade not aid

    Reclaiming Nigeria’s sovereignty: Trade not aid

    • By Mojisola Sodeinde

    When President Donald Trump threatened, in characteristic fashion, to cut off aid and invade Nigeria, it was easy to dismiss his words as the familiar noise of populist brinkmanship. Yet beneath the bluster lies a sobering truth: foreign aid remains one of the last instruments of external control over sovereign African states. Dressed as benevolence, it too often functions as conditional generosity, used to influence, discipline, and remind developing nations of their supposed dependence.

    For Nigeria, the time has come to move beyond indignation and embrace a new doctrine: Trade Not Aid. It is not a slogan of isolation but a call for equality, enterprise, and strategic independence. If paying off external debt once restored fiscal sovereignty, then replacing aid dependency with trade-driven partnerships can secure economic sovereignty.

    A wake-up call from the aid era

    In early 2025, President Trump initiated a sweeping dismantling of USAID, eliminating upwards of 80 per cent of its programmes and effectively closing or absorbing the agency into the United States Department of State. This abrupt shift is more than a U.S. domestic policy change; it is a signal to the world that traditional aid relationships are no longer reliable. For Africa, and for Nigeria in particular, it represents a strategic inflection point: the architecture of foreign assistance is changing, whether we like it or not.

    This development matters deeply for Nigeria because it reveals that aid is not simply a gesture of benevolence, but a tool of leverage. The sudden collapse of a major provider like USAID exposes the fragility of dependency. It shows that when a country becomes too reliant on external “help,” it is vulnerable to sudden withdrawal, policy coercion, and strategic realignment by donor states. The message is clear: if you want reliability, you must build capacity; if you want sovereignty, you must build production. In short: trade outlasts aid.

    Sixty-five years of aid, little to show

    After more than six decades of Western aid and partnership, Nigeria has remarkably little to show for the billions in development assistance and conditional support it has received. From the early years of post-independence “technical cooperation” to modern donor-driven programmes in governance, agriculture, and education, the results have been uneven and superficial. Poverty remains widespread, infrastructure inadequate, and industrialisation elusive.

    Much of the aid has flowed through consultants, contractors, and administrative overheads in donor capitals, leaving minimal impact on the ground. This pattern of dependency has dulled initiative, distorted policy priorities, and perpetuated a sense of helplessness among African institutions. Nigeria’s over-exposure to Western “assistance” has, paradoxically, constrained its ability to pursue structural transformation. The aid paradigm has become a velvet cage, comfortable enough to occupy, yet confining enough to stifle innovation and ambition.

    The trade shift behind the tension

    Nigeria’s recent trade diplomacy offers important context for the surge of Western unease and Trump’s public outburst. In just the past year, Nigeria has signed a string of high-value agreements that point to a decisive pivot away from dependence and toward diversification.

    A new $15-billion trade volume with China underscores a deepening partnership built around infrastructure, technology, and industrial cooperation, one that increasingly bypasses Western financing. Nigeria’s strategic MoUs with Brazil in agriculture, science and innovation, along with expanded cooperation with the Netherlands on trade facilitation and Taiwan on engineering and agro-processing, further signal a shift toward pragmatic, multi-vector diplomacy.

    These moves represent not charity but commerce, not compliance but competition.

    For Washington, accustomed to wielding aid as leverage, this evolution is unsettling. Trump’s aggression, cloaked in the language of “aid withdrawal,” reflects a deeper anxiety: the erosion of Western influence in Africa’s largest market. A Nigeria that trades widely and negotiates firmly threatens the old calculus of dependency. Aid loses its coercive value when a country can secure investment capital, technology, and markets elsewhere.

    In this sense, Trump’s threat is not about generosity but about geopolitical jealousy, a reaction to Nigeria’s growing economic assertiveness and its willingness to engage global partners on equal terms. What masquerades as frustration over governance or security is, in truth, the discomfort of a superpower watching its leverage fade.

    Read Also: PDP, APC trade blame over Mutfwang’s alleged defection moves

    Partnership, not paternalism

    Across the developing world, nations that have risen fastest did so not through aid, but through trade, technology, and targeted investment. Their success lay in insisting that international cooperation be built on mutual interest and measurable returns, not perpetual dependence.

    For Nigeria, the lesson is clear: economic power is earned through production, value addition, and negotiation, not through grants and goodwill. Trade builds capability, aid builds complacency. The goal, therefore, is not to reject cooperation, but to redefine it, anchoring foreign policy on reciprocity, transparency, and national interest.

    Building a Nigerian model

    Every successful transition from aid to trade has been driven by three core principles:

    1. Resource Sovereignty and Fiscal Prudence: Managing natural resources transparently ensures that national wealth finances domestic priorities, not donor agendas.

    2. Industrialisation and Export Competitiveness: Processing raw materials, scaling manufacturing, and developing logistics infrastructure create jobs and sustainable foreign exchange.

    3. Human Capital and Innovation: Investing in research, technology, and skills transforms population growth into productivity.

    These are not abstract goals; they are tested pathways to autonomy. Nigeria already possesses the institutions, market size, and talent to lead such a transformation. What is required now is coherence, aligning domestic reform with foreign engagement so that every international relationship strengthens local enterprise.

    Policy recommendations for a Trade-First Nigeria

    1. Strengthen the Sovereign Wealth and Investment Framework

    Nigeria’s Sovereign Wealth Fund, through the Nigeria Sovereign Investment Authority (NSIA), should serve as a catalyst for industrial diversification. By investing in export-oriented manufacturing, renewable energy, and digital infrastructure, it can gradually replace donor funding with self-sustaining domestic capital.

    2. Redefine Diplomacy Around Economic Missions

    Nigeria’s embassies must evolve into trade and technology hubs, mandated to attract foreign investment, promote Nigerian goods, and secure market access. Diplomats should be evaluated not on ceremonial visibility, but on trade outcomes and partnerships forged.

    3. Institutionalise Reciprocity in International Agreements

    Every future cooperation framework should include a reciprocal partnership clause, ensuring technology transfer, local value addition, and measurable Nigerian benefit. No external assistance should be accepted without a clear national return.

    4. Deepen Regional Integration and South–South Cooperation

    By expanding intra-African trade through ECOWAS and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), Nigeria can increase export diversity and negotiate with external partners from a position of strength. South–South collaboration, particularly with Asian and Middle Eastern economies, can open new markets based on shared development priorities rather than conditional aid.

    A call to strategic independence

    Trump’s threat may be provocative, but it is also clarifying. It exposes the imbalance at the heart of the global aid system: generosity tied to compliance. For Nigeria, the path forward lies not in resentment but in reform, turning this moment into a declaration of sovereignty.

    Trade Not Aid must become the guiding philosophy of Nigeria’s engagement with the world: a commitment to economic self-determination through production, innovation, and equitable partnerships.

    The time has come for Nigeria to say, confidently and without apology: ‘We welcome partnership, not patronage. We seek cooperation, not control’.

    Trade Not Aid is not a rejection of help—it is an affirmation of strength. It is the next chapter of Nigeria’s independence.

    • Dr. Sodeinde is an international development strategist.  She writes on development, governance, migration, and Africa’s political economy.
  • Tinubu Media Force defends Nigeria’s sovereignty, warns against misguided foreign interference

    Tinubu Media Force defends Nigeria’s sovereignty, warns against misguided foreign interference

    The Tinubu Media Force, led by its National Coordinator Gbenga Abiola, has reaffirmed Nigeria’s sovereignty and stability under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, urging the international community, particularly the United States, to support the country’s reform efforts rather than promote misleading narratives or threats of intervention.

    In a statement issued in Abuja, Abiola described Nigeria as Africa’s anchor, citing its vast population, cultural diversity, and economic influence. 

    He noted that under President Tinubu, the country is undergoing a national rebirth driven by resilience, strategic governance, and a renewed hope agenda.

    He stressed that Nigeria’s global significance as the largest Black nation is not coincidental, adding that the country is emerging from years of weak leadership and is now positioned to fulfil its historic role on the continent.

    Abiola highlighted key strides by the Tinubu administration in strengthening security, stabilizing the economy, and rebuilding global confidence. 

    According to official data, over the last two years, security forces have neutralised more than 6,260 terrorists, arrested over 14,000 suspects, and rescued more than 5,300 kidnapped victims. 

    The federal government has also raised the defence budget from ₦1.25 trillion in 2023 to ₦4.91 trillion in 2025 and tripled annual police recruitment from 10,000 to 30,000 officers.

    He asserted that the government is gradually flattening the curve of insecurity through intelligence-based operations and a complete overhaul of the security architecture, resulting in visible improvements across the North West, North Central, and the Federal Capital Territory.

    Responding to comments by former U.S. President Donald Trump alleging persecution of Christians in Nigeria, Abiola dismissed the claims as false and divisive. 

    He maintained that no credible report in the past two years has described any religious genocide in the country, insisting that recent violent incidents are isolated criminal acts, not targeted religious extermination.

    He reaffirmed that the Tinubu administration treats all violence as national crime devoid of ethnic or religious bias and remains committed to justice and national unity. 

    Nigeria, he said, remains a multi-faith, multi-ethnic nation where citizens coexist peacefully and contribute to development, and no government policy supports sectarian persecution.

    Abiola cautioned that destabilising Nigeria would have severe repercussions for Africa, stressing that the nation remains the continent’s primary pillar politically, economically, and spiritually. “If that pillar is shaken, the whole continent will feel it,” he warned, adding that Africa’s prosperity is closely tied to Nigeria’s peace and progress.

    He also highlighted the economic interdependence within the subregion, noting that if the entire population of Lagos State were to move into neighboring Benin Republic, Togo, or Ghana, the combined economic systems of those countries would collapse in a matter of days. According to him, this is why Nigerians often say, “When Nigeria sneezes, Africa shakes.”

    Read Also: Tinubu Media Force celebrates Seyi Tinubu as symbol of Renewed Hope

    Citing the consequences of Western interventions in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Gbenga Abiola warned that any attempt to apply similar tactics to Nigeria would have catastrophic global consequences. He explained that the case of Nigeria, rhetorically speaking, might not do the world any good. Considering Nigeria’s dexterity, complexity, and importance across all economic sectors, war or foreign invasion would not only destabilize Africa but also hurt the global economy, including the United States itself.

    He added that a large percentage of Nigerians contribute to sustaining the American medical system and play vital roles in key sectors of the U.S. economy from healthcare and education to technology and engineering. Abiola urged President Trump and the American state to redirect their energies toward strengthening partnerships with Nigeria, noting that the country has greatly contributed to the United States’ success and global reputation.

    The Tinubu Media Force also called on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU) to rise in unity and defend not only Nigeria but the collective independence and integrity of African nations against invasions, misinformation, and wrong narratives. According to the statement, Africa must now speak with one voice, protect its image, and chart its destiny without external manipulation or undue interference.

    Concluding the statement, Gbenga Abiola reaffirmed that Nigeria is a sovereign nation deserving of global respect and fair engagement. He maintained that a stable and prosperous Nigeria guarantees a stronger and more peaceful Africa. What Nigeria needs, he said, is collaboration, not confrontation; support, not suspicion. The world must stand with Nigeria, not against her.

  • Help Nigeria needs

    Help Nigeria needs

    The threat by the President of the United States of America (POTUS), Donald Trump, to invade Nigeria, “if the Nigerian government continues to allow the killing of Christians” will tantalize many victims of the vicious attacks by Moslem extremist groups like the Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa (ISWA) and similar terrorist groups making life unbearable for residents in many parts of Nigeria. For such victims, especially in the northeast, Plateau and Benue states, where thousands have been killed by insurgents, invasion by the Trump army as guardian angels will be welcomed.

    But, that would be only one part of the story, considering that the lives of thousands of regular Moslems have also been wasted by some vicious religious extremists. A jejune argument would be that there are no extremist Christians killing Moslems, the same way there are extremist Moslems killing Christians. Also, that prominent Moslem leaders in the country do not vehemently and openly condemn such vicious killings. Another of such untenable argument would be that it is Moslems that are killing their fellow Moslems, so why should the rest none Moslems bother.       

    The truth however is that extremist Moslems constitute danger to moderate Moslems, Christians and non-believers wherever they operate to establish a theocratic state. If they can, they would kill every person who does not agree with their extremist ideology, in pursuit of their narrow interest. Sadly, as evidence have shown in several countries across the world, they mask their political interests, while fighting to conquer and excise power, under the cloak of religious piety, and the gullible Moslems believe them.

    A ready example is Afghanistan. It has remained a desolate country despite being a Moslem country, because of the internecine war for political power, between extremist Moslems and the moderates. The Taliban which pretend to be fighting for religious piety are in reality fighting for political control of the country. When they gain control, they impose extremist religious doctrines to mask their real intention, which is political control of the country and its resources.

    Like in the Animal Farm by George Orwell, they create an animal kingdom, where some animals are more equal than others. They live off the resources of the state, and use the apparatus of state to whip the rest into line. Like the pigs, the bloody extremists would say: “it is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples” while the gullible fool will intone “I will work harder.” They would say: “Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend” and the masses will chant amen.

    Similar masked extremism plays out in several predominant Moslem countries, and parts of northern Nigeria. What complicates the Nigerian situation is the mixture of religious extremism with ethnic exceptionalism, particularly in the northern part of the country. For an example, the killings in the middle belt are substantially fuelled by the desire by an ethnic militia to control natural resources of another ethnic group. Even former president, Muhammadu Buhari alluded to that when he urged the ethnic groups in the region to accommodate the herdsmen, who are seeking pasture.

    But the crisis in the northeast part of the country seeks to create a theocratic Moslem caliphate that would overthrow the present political configuration. It can be argued that should such permutation work, it would extend westward to possibly overthrow the Usman Dan Fodio dynasty that has dominated local political leadership for over a century now. While religion is a form of binding force for those pursuing ethnic exceptionalism and those pursuing religious extremism, the fact is that in the long run, both cannot cohere.                 

    Of course, should US attack Nigeria, the two interest would likely work together to defend their common interest. While one is not a military expert, one ponders on the complexity of such an attack. Except in the northeast, where the Boko Haram is localized in the massive forests of the Lake Chad region, one wonders the focal points of attack for the US forces. With the threats from the extremists in several parts of the country, how will the mighty US Army wipe out the threats against Christians livings in several parts of the country?  

    If there should be such intervention to help secure the lives of Christians which Trump claims to be the main objective, the inter-ethnic and religious rivalry in Nigeria would likely exacerbate, and the country may degenerate into a civil war. While Trump has modern military capabilities, rich Moslem countries, have money to pour into the theatre and Nigeria could become another Ukraine. With no clear cut boundaries between Christians and Moslems across the country, it may turn into a war without boundaries.

    Read Also: JUST IN: NSA Office to brief media on Trump’s genocide claim against Christians in Nigeria

    To protect the Christian minority in the northern part of the country, will the Trump army patrol the streets, guard the churches, clerics and Christians as they engage in their routine and religious activities? If the rich Moslem countries fund Moslem militias to also protect Moslems, will the country not degenerate into atrocious internecine, inter-ethnic and religious wars similar to the Bosnian War in the 1990s? If the US army should fight to save Christians from Moslems, how would they deal with spouses, brothers and sisters who share different faiths?

    Few years ago, many international pundits had predicted that Nigeria would disintegrate before now. The argument was premised on the fact that all the indices of a failed state were prevalent in the country. For example, there are several armed non-state actors, challenging the state monopoly of force. The national economy is dependent on external shocks and the political elites are willing to fight to finish. The inflationary pressure remained frightening, while the population was growing way ahead of economic development, to compound the bourgeoning youth unemployment.

    Until May 2023, many states in the country could not pay salaries without borrowing from the bank. The national economy suffered deep stagflation, and running away from the country, was considered the wisest investment for the young and even not so young. To the amazement of the world, Nigeria is turning the bend, and despite the economic hardship, the majority appears willing to give the political actors, led by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a chance to succeed or fail.

    Should Donald Trump fall into the trap set by international buccaneers who want to trade on Nigerians’ misery, the consequences will reverberate across the entire continent and even beyond. What US can do for Nigeria, is to supply her army with requisite knowledge, intelligence and ammunition to defeat the several insurgency groups seeking to destabilize the country. This writer hopes the threat from Trump would be a wake-up call for the ruling elite and the national army, to save their face, and protect our nation’s independence and integrity.

  • Nestoil and the future of Nigeria’s indigenous oil players

    Nestoil and the future of Nigeria’s indigenous oil players

    Sir: On Tuesday, October 22, policemen sealed off the glass-fronted corporate headquarters of Nestoil Limited on Victoria Island. Employees watched in disbelief as security operatives, acting on court orders, escorted receivers appointed by FBNQuest Merchant Bank into the building. By midday, access had been restricted, and by evening, the story was everywhere: one of Nigeria’s flagship indigenous oil and gas companies had been placed under receivership over an estimated $1 billion debt.

    The takeover, authorised by Justice D. I. Dipeolu of the Federal High Court empowered FBNQuest and its parent company, First Trustees, to seize Nestoil’s assets. The court also directed over 20 banks — including GTBank, Stanbic IBTC, Fidelity, Polaris, and Providus — to freeze the company’s accounts.

    For Nigeria’s oil and gas industry, this was more than a legal action. It was a signal.

    For decades, indigenous energy firms — companies like Seplat, Oando, Shoreline, Aiteo, and Nestoil — were celebrated as symbols of national aspiration. They emerged in the wake of the 2010 Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act, which mandated greater local participation in upstream operations. Backed by patriotic fervour and political goodwill, they borrowed heavily from Nigerian banks to acquire oil blocks divested by Shell, Chevron, and other international oil companies retreating from onshore Niger Delta operations.

    It was a period of exuberance. Crude oil traded above $100 per barrel, the naira was relatively stable, and credit flowed easily. Dollar-denominated loans worth billions were advanced to indigenous firms, often on the assumption that oil prices would stay high and production would ramp up smoothly.

    But then came the shocks.

    The oil price collapse of 2014, followed by the COVID-19 crash in 2020, exposed the fragility of those projections. Production targets were missed, pipelines were sabotaged, and foreign exchange shortages made debt servicing increasingly difficult. Many firms turned to “evergreening” — rolling over loans, extending tenures, and quietly restructuring terms. Banks, fearing contagion in a fragile economy, preferred accommodation to confrontation.

    Read Also: JUST IN: NSA Office to brief media on Trump’s genocide claim against Christians in Nigeria

    That era of quiet indulgence has now ended.

    According to a recent SBM Intelligence report, October alone saw a marked surge in court filings by banks seeking enforcement of non-performing loans. For years, lenders had been accused of shielding politically connected debtors from accountability. Now, under pressure from the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and shareholders, banks are tightening their books.

    The Nestoil case epitomises this shift. What would once have been a closed-door restructuring has now become a public reckoning. The court’s Mareva injunction — a tool typically used to prevent asset flight — is one of the most aggressive debt enforcement measures in Nigerian corporate history.

    The implications go beyond one company. Nigeria’s banks collectively hold billions in exposure to indigenous oil firms. Many of these loans, originally denominated in U.S. dollars at about a dollar to N360, have become far riskier as the naira continues to weaken — it traded near N1,465 on the morning Nestoil’s doors were sealed.

    As lenders scramble to clean their balance sheets, more aggressive recovery actions are expected. Already, several oil service firms have reported disruptions to operations due to account freezes or asset seizures.

    For Nestoil, the immediate battle is legal and financial. The company insists its operations remain unaffected, even as its corporate offices remain under receivership. But the symbolism is undeniable. A company once held up as proof of Nigeria’s local content success now stands as a cautionary tale.

    It marks the end of an era when access to credit could paper over weak fundamentals, and when relationships could override repayment schedules.

    The indigenous oil and gas dream is not dead. But it is being forced to grow up.

    And in this new financial order, survival will depend not on who you know, but on how well you manage risk and trust.

    •Tosin Adeoti, contact@tosinadeoti.com.

  • Future of civic discourse in Nigeria

    Future of civic discourse in Nigeria

    Sir: Nigeria is currently navigating a period of profound uncertainty. The nation faces not only economic hardship resulting from recent policy reforms but also escalating political divisions that threaten national cohesion. Widespread discontent has emerged amid rising inflation, insecurity, and perceptions of governmental inaction. The removal of fuel subsidies and the unification of exchange rates in 2023 led to significant increases in transportation costs, food prices, and general living expenses. Although these reforms were intended to stabilize the economy long-term, they have imposed immediate and severe burdens on citizens.

    In response, the federal government introduced several palliative measures: direct cash transfers to vulnerable households, temporary wage supplements for public sector workers, support for key economic sectors, and a student loan scheme. While these initiatives acknowledge the hardship faced by Nigerians, critics argue they are insufficient, poorly targeted, and potentially inflationary if not accompanied by broader structural reforms.

    Amid these challenges, some individuals have begun advocating for military intervention, citing frustration with governance. A segment of the youth population has used social media and public platforms to express support for a coup. Many lack direct experience of Nigeria’s past under military rule, which was marked by widespread human rights violations, suppression of civil liberties, and systemic abuse of power.

    In previous decades, journalism in Nigeria was a source of intellectual development and civic education. Today, however, the media risks becoming a vehicle for propaganda and incitement—echoing the dangerous role played by radio broadcasters during the Rwandan genocide, where inflammatory rhetoric contributed to mass violence.

    This concern has been heightened by recent remarks from President Donald Trump, who labelled Nigeria a “country of particular concern” and alleged the “mass slaughter” of Christians. While Christian communities have suffered attacks, international observers and Nigerian authorities have rejected the claim of a targeted genocide. The Nigerian government has stated unequivocally that “there is no genocide, now or ever, in Nigeria.” Analysts and human rights organizations have noted that Muslims in northern Nigeria are frequently the primary victims of violence, particularly from groups such as Boko Haram and ISWAP.

    The follow-up to Trump’s declaration—namely, the suggestion of military intervention—is most unfortunate and deeply uncalled for. It is even more disturbing that some Nigerians appear to applaud such a move. Thankfully, even among opposition ranks, there are voices of reason able to read between the lines and reject this dangerous proposition.

    Yet it remains a tragedy that others view it as a welcome development. Should such an intervention ever materialize, it would spell doom for Nigeria. Far from preventing genocide, it could exacerbate existing tensions and further polarize the nation. History offers sobering lessons: in every instance where foreign military intervention has occurred under similar pretenses—Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan—the result has been catastrophic. Nations were destabilized, peace was lost, and social cohesion dismantled.

    The violence in Nigeria is multifaceted—driven by poverty, land disputes, ethnic rivalries, and criminal activity. Reducing it to a single religious narrative distorts the truth and risks inflaming tensions. Rwanda’s genocide, described by Pope John Paul II as “a failure of humanity,” was fuelled by unchecked hatred and the deliberate manipulation of identity. These tragedies were not spontaneous—they were the result of silence, misinformation, and the weaponization of difference.

    Read Also: Adefarasin denies genocide claims, questions US motives in Nigeria

    Nigerian scholars such as Jonah Isawa Elaigwu and Bolaji Akinyemi have long warned of the fragile foundations of Nigerian federalism. Elaigwu’s work emphasizes that “federalism is not merely a constitutional arrangement—it is a culture of dialogue, compromise, and inclusion.” When this culture is undermined, national unity is placed at risk.

    Social media, once a platform for civic engagement, is increasingly being used to spread misinformation and incite division. Nigerian youth, once celebrated as catalysts for democratic change, are now vulnerable to manipulation and digital vigilantism. As Chinua Achebe observed, “The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership.” Yet leadership is not the sole responsibility of those in office—it is a collective duty shared by all citizens.

    Sustainable change requires rational discourse, active civic participation, and peaceful advocacy. It cannot be achieved through violence, misinformation, or nostalgia for authoritarianism. Falsehoods must be confronted, leaders held accountable, and the rule of law upheld.

    The way forward demands unity, truth, and a renewed commitment to democratic values. As Nelson Mandela wisely stated, “It is in the character of growth that we should learn from both pleasant and unpleasant experiences.” The choices made today will shape the future of generations to come.

    Nigeria stands at a decisive moment. The nation must choose between renewal and regression, between dialogue and division, between democracy and despair. The path to national transformation lies in collective responsibility, principled leadership, and an unwavering commitment to justice and peace.

    •Rev. Canon Benedict Koledoye, South Wales, United Kingdom.

  • US Trump’s claim on Christian persecution in Nigeria exaggerated – Archbishop Borokini

    US Trump’s claim on Christian persecution in Nigeria exaggerated – Archbishop Borokini

    The Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), Akure Diocese, Most Rev. Simeon Borokini, has described as “exaggerated” the recent claim by United States President Donald Trump, alleging the widespread persecution of Christians in Nigeria.

    Borokini, who faulted President Trump’s claim, said the insecurity in Nigeria affects both the Christians and Muslims alike.

    Last Friday, President Trump announced the designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) following global calls for action against what he described as the “mass slaughter” of Christians in the West African nation.

    In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that Christians in Nigeria face an “existential threat,” blaming “radical Islamists” for the killings.

    “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed,” Trump wrote.

    “Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern – but that is the least of it.”

    The U.S. President’s comments have since sparked widespread reactions locally and internationally.

    Speaking with The Nation in Akure, Ondo State capital, on Monday, Bishop Borokini said contrary to Trump’s claim there is no ongoing “genocide” of Christians in Nigeria, particularly in the North.

    According to him, attacks by Boko Haram insurgents and armed herdsmen have affected both Christians and Muslims.

    “Well, I would say it’s been exaggerated because it is not only Christians that are being killed – both Christians and Muslims are victims.

    Read Also: NDDC doing well under Tinubu, says Aiyedatiwa

    “These Boko Haram and herder attacks target not only Christians. I think what Trump is saying is an exaggeration. I don’t see it as genocide. It’s not Christians alone that are being persecuted or killed,” Bishop Borokini. 

    The Anglican Bishop condemned all forms of violence in the country, saying his faith does not support the killing of anyone, regardless of religion.

    He urged the government to take decisive action against those perpetrating violence and to further strengthen national security.

    “The government should do something about security. I condemn every form of killing – whether of Christians or Muslims,” he stated. 

    “President Tinubu has been trying in the past year, and some measures have been taken, but there is still room for improvement. Lives and property must be protected, and the government should remain conscious of this responsibility.”

    Borokini also charged Christians and Muslims to hold firmly to their faiths, remain vigilant, and support government efforts to restore peace across the country.

  • Onjeh warns against Trump’s military threat, says Nigeria needs support, not invasion

    Onjeh warns against Trump’s military threat, says Nigeria needs support, not invasion

    Comrade Daniel Onjeh, former Chairman of the Governing Board of the Project Development Institute (PRODA) and the 2023 APC senatorial candidate for Benue South, has reacted to the recent statement credited to the President of the United States, Donald Trump, in which he threatened possible military action against Nigeria on the grounds of alleged religious persecution.

    Onjeh said the comment has raised serious concern among Nigerians, not only because of the tone of the threat but because of the long history of foreign discussions portraying Nigeria as a country that may not survive its internal challenges. 

    He said that even though such views were not official government declarations, they created a lingering sense that some external forces have always looked at Nigeria through the lens of instability. That is why many Nigerians do not take this recent statement as a mere expression of concern.

    He acknowledged that the issues Trump raised, including killings and insecurity, are real and painful and every sincere Nigerian wants them addressed. 

    He added that he is speaking not only as a Christian but also as someone from one of the regions that has suffered some of the worst attacks in recent years, the North Central, with Benue State in particular bearing a heavy share of the violence.

     He stressed that terrorism in Nigeria has not spared anyone. Christians have been killed. Muslims have been killed. Traditional worshippers have been killed. Even those with no religion have been killed. What the country is facing is not a religious war, but a national assault on every citizen, regardless of faith or background.

    He noted that there are many Muslim countries where terrorists also kill Muslims, which shows that terrorism does not obey religion. It feeds on fear, chaos, and division. Narrowing the Nigerian crisis to only Christian persecution, he warned, will deepen mistrust among citizens and make the terrorists’ work easier. He said Nigerians must refuse any foreign attempt to turn a national tragedy into a religious divide.

    Onjeh recalled that countries such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Somalia were promised foreign help but were left in ruins after military intervention. He said Nigeria cannot afford to follow that path or open its doors to foreign soldiers under the illusion of protection.

    He explained that there is a clear difference between an intervention and an invasion. An intervention happens when a sovereign nation invites another country to assist it. An invasion is when a country forces itself in without consent, even if it claims to be acting for humanitarian reasons. Nigeria has not requested foreign troops, and any attempt to deploy external military forces on Nigerian soil against the will of the Nigerian government would amount to an invasion.

    He said what Nigeria truly needs is support to strengthen its own security forces, not foreign boots on the ground. 

    He called on the United States to allow Nigeria to acquire the modern weapons required to confront terrorists and criminal gangs who are already using advanced arms. 

    He questioned how bandits and extremist groups obtained these weapons when legitimate governments are blocked from accessing them.

    Onjeh said the United States can help Nigeria by sharing intelligence, training security forces, and exposing the local and foreign sponsors of terrorism. If there is credible information about Nigerians aiding violence, he said such information should be made public so that the country can confront the problem directly.

    He called on Nigerians to close ranks and stand with the President on this matter. Political disagreements at home, he said, must never blind citizens to the danger of foreign interference. Nigeria is open to friendship and partnership, but will not accept intimidation from any country, no matter how powerful.

    He concluded that what Nigeria needs is genuine support, not a forced rescue mission. What the country seeks is cooperation, not control, and progress, not destabilisation.

  • Envoy  underlines sports as key to cultural exchange between China, Nigeria

    Envoy  underlines sports as key to cultural exchange between China, Nigeria

    The Chinese Ambassador to Nigeria, Yu Dunhai, has identified sport as a vital medium for cultural exchange and mutual understanding between his country and Nigeria.

    Speaking at the finals of the Chinese Ambassador’s Cup Wushu Championship in Abuja on Yu said Wushu represents more than just physical training — it embodies values central to both Chinese and Nigerian cultures.

     “Wushu is a precious treasure of Chinese culture. It not only builds our bodies but also shapes our character and spirit. It embodies core Chinese values — self-discipline, self-improvement, and a commitment to respecting and helping others.

     “These resonate deeply with Nigerian culture, which also cherishes hard work and social harmony.”

    He also noted that Wushu has “taken root and flourished” in Nigeria, drawing practitioners from both cities and rural communities.

    The ambassador also linked the sport’s growth to China’s Global Civilisation Initiative and ongoing China–Africa cooperation efforts.

    According to him: “At the 2024 Beijing Summit of the Forum on China–Africa Cooperation, President Xi Jinping and President Bola Tinubu held a successful meeting where they agreed to strengthen cultural and sports exchanges, designating 2026 as the ‘China–Africa Year of People-to-People Exchanges.”

    Yu also announced that Wushu will feature as an event at the 2026 Dakar Youth Olympic Games, calling it a milestone for Africa’s martial arts community.

     “This is a significant moment for every Wushu enthusiast here today. It opens up new opportunities for the sport’s growth across Africa,” he added.

    He encouraged Nigerian athletes to see Wushu as “more than just a sport,” but as a way to connect with Chinese culture and to serve as ambassadors of the China–Nigeria friendship.

    Read Also: NFF chieftains commend Salami on revival of Shooting Stars

     “The Chinese Embassy in Nigeria will continue to support the development of Wushu in Nigeria. We will work with the National Sports Commission and the local Wushu community to create more platforms for exchange and learning,” the ambassador assured.

    He added: “I look forward to the day when more Nigerian Wushu enthusiasts will visit China, see famous sites like the Shaolin Temple, and experience the depth and beauty of Chinese Wushu culture.”

    The Chairman of the National Sports Commission, Shehu Dikko, commended the Chinese Embassy’s support, saying the sport holds immense potential among Nigerian youth.

    Wushu is gaining ground in Nigeria, and with continued support, it will create another path for our youths to achieve their dreams. Now that it’s reaching the Olympic level, we will take it even more seriously,” Dikko said.

    At the championship, Justice Unanka won gold in the Taolu Single category, Naima Sanusi triumphed in Tai Chi, Goodluck Emmanuel took gold in the 75kg Male Sanda, and Winnifred Agara won the 60kg Female Sanda event.

    Wushu, a modern sport derived from traditional Chinese martial arts, features Taolu (routines or forms), Tai Chi (a style focusing on balance and fluid motion), and Sanda (combat sparring involving punches, kicks, and throws).

    The event, held at the National Stadium, drew a large crowd of spectators eager to watch the athletes showcase skill, discipline, and cultural pride.

  • Nigeria, U.S. and the politics of perception

    Nigeria, U.S. and the politics of perception

    Sir: When the United States recently classified Nigeria once again as a “Country of Particular Concern” over alleged religious persecution, many Nigerians reacted with a mixture of surprise, frustration and weary familiarity. It was not the first time Washington has made such a designation, but the tone and timing especially coming alongside firm public statements from President Donald Trump sparked anxiety about Nigeria’s international standing and the wider implications for diplomatic and economic relations.

    The label, tied to claims that Christian communities face targeted suppression and insecurity, did not emerge in isolation. Evangelical groups and rights advocates in the U.S. have sustained pressure for years, insisting that Nigeria is witnessing a systematic campaign against Christians. That narrative has gained traction in certain policy circles abroad, even as it remains contested by many Nigerian stakeholders, security experts, and interfaith leaders.

    Yet the picture inside Nigeria is more complex than one storyline suggests. There is no denying that Christian communities have suffered devastating attacks in parts of the country, particularly in the Middle Belt and Northeast. Churches have been razed, worshippers killed, and entire communities displaced. But Muslims too, especially across Borno, Yobe, Katsina, Zamfara and Sokoto have been victims of terrorism, banditry and targeted killings. Mosques have been attacked; religious scholars abducted and murdered. Entire villages, predominantly Muslim, have been wiped out by armed groups.

    Nigeria’s reality is not a war between two faiths. What the country faces is a combination of terrorism, rural banditry, communal conflicts, climate-induced migration pressures, cattle-route disputes, land use clashes, and the legacy of weak local governance structures. To reduce this layered crisis to a single religious persecution narrative is not only inaccurate, but risks deepening suspicion among communities already struggling with fear and mistrust.

    Still, criticism should not be dismissed simply because its framing is imperfect. Nigeria has a duty to protect every citizen, regardless of religion or location. For too long, families across this country whether in Southern Kaduna or Zamfara forests, in Plateau villages or Borno communities have buried loved ones without justice. That national pain must be acknowledged honestly. Security failures, uneven responses, and slow justice mechanisms have fed frustration. Diplomatic contests should not make us blind to domestic responsibilities.

    The federal government’s response so far has been measured, rejecting the U.S. designation as misguided, while reaffirming Nigeria’s commitment to religious freedom and interfaith harmony. It is a wise approach. Anger may be emotionally satisfying, but diplomacy requires restraint. Nigeria cannot afford avoidable strategic friction with a global partner whose support remains vital in counterterrorism, trade, and military cooperation.

    At the same time, Nigeria must not appear defensive or passive. The moment calls for quiet confidence backed by visible action: stronger prosecution of violent actors, transparent reporting on communal incidents, improved early-warning systems, interfaith dialogue at community level, and a firmer hand against inflammatory rhetoric from religious or political figures. Policy must meet principle.

    The United States, for its part, must resist being guided by lobby groups alone. Nigeria’s story cannot be reduced to campaign talking points or foreign ideological battles. A balanced reading of our challenges recognises that both mosques and churches have fallen under attack and that extremists exploit sectarian fear precisely to divide Nigerians.

    Read Also: Abia, Turkey partner to promote made-in-Nigeria goods

    There are consequences if this misunderstanding continues. Visa restrictions, partnership strain, and reputational damage are not theoretical risks. They can affect students, investors, families and businesses. Neither Abuja nor Washington stands to gain from an avoidable spiral. Both countries require each other — for regional stability, counterterror operations, trade, and democratic governance.

    Nigeria should not shy away from accountability, but neither should it accept a mischaracterisation of its troubles. Our armed forces — made up of Muslims and Christians — have fought and died together in the same trenches. Our communities, despite tensions, continue to intermingle, marry, trade and coexist daily. That reality deserves recognition.

    The task now is to protect citizens while protecting the truth. Nigeria must demonstrate seriousness, not insecurity. Quiet reform, steady diplomacy, and firm national messaging will serve the country better than loud confrontation.

    In moments like this, maturity matters. The world is watching to see not whether Nigeria has challenges — every nation does — but how Nigeria responds. A confident country fixes its weaknesses without surrendering its dignity. That is the path that protects lives, preserves unity and strengthens the nation’s voice on the global stage.

    In the end, what Nigeria needs is not applause abroad but peace at home. And that peace will come not from foreign declarations but from strong institutions, fair justice, and leaders and citizens committed to refusing the dangerous politics of faith and fear.

    •Abdulhamid Abdullahi Aliyu,Abuja

  • Nigeria needs ‘spiritual reconfiguration’ to grow

    Nigeria needs ‘spiritual reconfiguration’ to grow

    Reverend Benton Opene-Luxington (Rev Benton), founder of The RevBenton Experience, has said Nigeria should undergo a national spiritual reconfiguration, one that sees leadership from a foundation of moral clarity and divine alignment. “Nigeria’’, he said, ‘‘has enough talent,” but lacks integrity encoded in spirit. I’m not calling for new politics — I’m calling for new priests who can govern.”

    His messages spread through language, clarity, and fire, instead of the traditional markers of denomination, celebrity leadership, or church expansion.

    Benton said his platform provides spiritual awakening, prophetic clarity, and transformational leadership. With a digital content reaching millions, with more than 10 million engaging with his sermons and teachings on the social media, his influence is visible among youths and the emerging middle class, many of who said he speaks to their experience.

    “I had no name for the kind of warfare I was under,” a follower said. “Benton didn’t just preach — he decoded my life.”

     Rev Benton speaks in declarations, not suggestions. His language is urgent, poetic, and prophetic. In one of his most sermons, he intones:

    “You are a throne, not a target. And that’s why they came for your light.” This and others are spiritual touchpoints with  young Nigerians searching for identity and clarity in a time of cultural disillusionment and religious fatigue.

    Born in Lagos, Rev Benton represents intellectual credibility and spiritual fire. He addresses a generation raised in the tension between tradition and transition — offering motivation, and spiritual tools for navigation.

    The movement, known internally as The Chosen Ones, is not structured like a church. It is a digital sanctuary, a prophetic ecosystem, and a mentorship portal for those who feel called to lead beyond the pulpit. Rev Benton’s topics include spiritual warfare, narcissistic trauma, marine kingdom operations, divine purpose, and energetic protection.

    He is developing a celestial university, a platform that merges ancient wisdom, psychological intelligence, and prophetic activation.

    The university is aimed at those who feel called to influence systems — from governance to healing to media — through spiritual intelligence.

    But his vision is not limited to platforms and programmes. Rev Benton.

    Read Also: Final Trumpet Call: Nigeria bids farewell to titan of integrity, Christopher Kolade

    Across the country, especially in Lagos, Abuja, Port Harcourt, and Benin, his messages are being shared in youth fellowships, college campuses, co-working spaces, and even within traditional churches — quietly reorienting how young Nigerians view purpose, warfare, and destiny.

    His approach is unapologetically African. He references Yoruba cosmology, ancestral codes, and spiritual symbolism with fluency, but always points his audience back to their divine design.

    “I’m not here to sell escape,” he says. “I’m here to activate dominion. We don’t just survive systems — we rebuild them.”

    As Nigeria contends with deep questions about its moral, cultural, and spiritual future, movements like Rev Benton’s represent a possible new model. It is not about volume. It is about vibration — about establishing altars in minds, not just buildings on land.

    And if the growing wave of digital testimonies, live audience growth, and private mentorship requests is any indication, the Celestial Movement is no longer a whisper.

    It is becoming a current — and Nigeria is beginning to respond.