Tag: Trump

  • President Trump’s war of interest

    President Trump’s war of interest

    Sir: The recent statement from the President of the United States, threatening to cut aid to Nigeria and order military preparations unless attacks on Christians cease, has escalated an already tense atmosphere into alarming headlines. Many interpret this declaration as an expression of moral outrage, which is understandable. However, such an approach risks causing more harm than good, not only to the individuals it aims to protect, but also to U.S.–Nigerian relations and the broader principles that should guide international responses to crises.

    First and foremost, it is crucial to acknowledge that the complexities of Nigeria’s security situation are multifaceted. The country grapples with a range of violence, from the insurgencies of Boko Haram and ISIS-affiliated groups in the northeast to communal clashes and criminal banditry in the Middle Belt and northwest regions. Victims of this violence span various religious and ethnic communities, and the root causes of such violence often lie in local grievances, historical conflicts, governance failures, land and resource competition, and the erosion of security institutions.

    Unilateral military threats carry substantial legal and practical risks. International law imposes strict limitations on the use of force across borders; unless clearly defending oneself or authorized by the UN Security Council, foreign military interventions in sovereign states raise troubling questions about legality and legitimacy. Even when framed as humanitarian efforts, such interventions can have unintended consequences: they may fuel nationalist sentiments, embolden extremists, destabilize fragile institutions, and create power vacuums that further exacerbate violence. Any entity contemplating military action must carefully consider whether it can achieve sustainable protection without aggravating the dynamics that lead to violence.

    Additionally, coercive gestures may undermine long-term partnerships and hinder progress. Nigeria is a strategic partner for the U.S. in Africa, vital for regional stability, counterterrorism cooperation, and economic relations. Sudden aid cuts could have a detrimental impact on civilians who rely on humanitarian assistance and development support. The threat of military force complicates collaboration on shared security objectives. If the aim is to strengthen protections for vulnerable communities, a more effective approach would involve continuous diplomatic pressure, conditional aid tied to specific reforms, and support for Nigeria’s capacity to investigate and hold accountable those who perpetrate abuses—not abrupt aid cuts or threats of military intervention.

    This discussion does not advocate for complacency. Where credible evidence exists regarding systematic persecution, the international community has both a moral obligation and practical means to act responsibly. Options include targeted sanctions against perpetrators, judicial cooperation for accountability, multilateral pressure through the United Nations and regional organizations, bolstered civilian protection programs, and strengthening the rule of law and community reconciliation.

    Read Also: How Nigeria can tackle crude oil theft- Ned Nwoko

    At its core, the ongoing tensions reflect a complex interplay of interests, especially regarding U.S. foreign policy. As the United States faces significant economic challenges, it needs to explore mutual relations that benefit both parties. However, being a superpower does not justify military interventions in resource-rich countries. Historical examples, such as U.S. involvement in Iran and Libya, highlight the unintended consequences of such actions.

    Instead of resorting to force, the U.S. should focus on diplomatic engagement, trade partnerships, and cultural exchanges that foster lasting ties. While the U.S. has specific interests globally, prioritizing collaboration over coercion will lead to a more stable and prosperous future for all nations involved.

    To Nigeria’s leaders, this moment calls for urgency and humility. Protecting citizens, irrespective of their faith, remains the core duty of any government. Authorities should embrace impartial investigations, foster collaboration with partners, and implement proactive measures such as effective policing, support for displaced communities, and robust early-warning mechanisms.

    This is a pivotal moment, a stark reminder of the challenges that lie at our doorstep. It calls for a reassessment of our approach and emphasizes the urgent need for well-coordinated actions to address our national issues. We cannot afford to wait for others to highlight our struggles. Let this be a turning point in our commitment to take responsibility for our future and ensure that we are active participants in forging the path forward, rather than passive observers of our own fate. The time for change is now.

    •Isah Aliyu Chiroma,<aliyuisahchiroma29@gmail.com>

  • JUST IN: NSCIA faults Trump’s designation of Nigeria as ‘Country of Particular Concern’

    JUST IN: NSCIA faults Trump’s designation of Nigeria as ‘Country of Particular Concern’

    The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) on Sunday condemned the U.S. government’s decision under President Donald Trump to label Nigeria a “Country of Particular Concern” over alleged persecution of Christians.

    NSCIA said the issue is not religious, adding that the terrorists are killing Christians and Muslims.

    Secretary General of NSCIA, Prof. Ishaq Oloyede, while briefing journalists in Abuja on Trump’s statement said US should help government fight insecurity and not invade Nigeria.

    Read Also: APC’s Ukachukwu weeps over burning of APC supporter’s building

    He described the move as unjust, biased, and based on a one-sided narrative.

    Oloyede argued that Nigeria’s insecurity stems from ethnic, political and economic issues, not religion, arguing Muslims and Christians have suffered from violence.

    NSCIA urged Nigerians to reject foreign attempts to cause disunity and called for peace, dialogue, and cooperation among all groups.

    He also asked the Federal Government take firm action on insecurity and tackle the menace.

    Details shortly……..

  • China’s Xi Jinping, Trump and Taiwan

    China’s Xi Jinping, Trump and Taiwan

    Two Thursdays ago, United States President Donald Trump met briefly with China’s President Xi Jinping in South Korea to discuss and diffuse US-China trade tensions. It was not clear what else they discussed other than trade issues. But speaking on a US television programme, “60 Minutes” on CBS last Sunday, he offered a perspective on the contentious China-Taiwan relations. Despite not discussing the long-standing disagreement between the two Asian countries, in which China still lays claim to Taiwan and was disposed to swallowing it by force, Mr Trump said he was sure China would not attack Taiwan during his presidency. To him, that assurance, which he claimed Mr Xi gave him, was sufficient. It must be noted that the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act obligates the US to provide Taiwan with the resources to defend itself in the event of an attack by China.

    Sometime in the future it will be clear whether indeed Mr Xi gave such assurances, or whether in fact the matter was discussed at all. If the issue was not discussed, as Mr Trump claimed on television, how then were the assurances given? Assuming the assurances were really given, it is striking how the US president said it was issued. Hear him: “He has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, ‘We would never do anything while President Trump is president,’ because they know the consequences.” His response to the CBS question undoubtedly underscores his megalomaniacal posturing. The issue may not have been discussed, but Mr Trump was satisfied that at different fora, Mr Xi and other Chinese officials gave commitment to holding back because they feared the mercurial US president.

    Narcissistic leaders are often so self-absorbed that they fail to realise how they sound, or what their responses connote. As far as Mr Trump is concerned, it was okay for him and his ego that if China would attack Taiwan, it should at least not happen during his presidency. He showed no commitment whatever to reviewing the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act or of lending his vaunted gargantuan weight to secure a long-term accommodation with China on the sore topic of Taiwan’s sovereignty. There is a biblical parallel for this extreme and destructive self-centredness. In Isaiah 39, the Prophet Isaiah visited King Hezekiah of Judah on God’s order, and the following dialogue ensued, including the context:

    39 At that time [a]Merodach-Baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. 2 And Hezekiah was pleased with them, and showed them the house of his treasures—the silver and gold, the spices and precious ointment, and all his armory—all that was found among his treasures. There was nothing in his house or in all his dominion that Hezekiah did not show them.

    3 Then Isaiah the prophet went to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say, and from where did they come to you?”

    So Hezekiah said, “They came to me from a far country, from Babylon.”

    4 And he said, “What have they seen in your house?”

    So Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them.”

    Read Also: Trump, not Nigeria, is of particular concern to the world

    5 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: 6 ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the LORD. 7 ‘And they shall take away some of your sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’ ”

    8 So Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good!” For he said, “At least there will be peace and truth in my days.”

    It has been conjectured that King Hezekiah felt there was nothing he could do to reverse God’s divine will, or that he simply lacked leadership perspective, or that he was too wearied by the illness he suffered to fight another spiritual battle, particularly for the next generation. Whatever was on his mind, it seemed abundantly evident that he simply lacked the character of a great leader. The next generations always mattered to a great leader, whether of a country or of a business, or even of a political party. Mr Trump is a mirror copy of King Hezekiah. For anyone who doubts the abysmal level the US president has sunk, including those who suggest that his actions and policies simply reflect the dynamics of the American society, his statement on what might happen to Taiwan after he was gone is a reminder and a confirmation of who he is at bottom. Mr Trump is unreflective, instinctive, self-centred, and simply incapable of complex reasoning. Unlike King Hezekiah (716-687 BC) who would die 100 years before the foretold exile in 586 BC, it won’t be long before dire consequences come rushing at Mr Trump. They are inescapable.

    And who would not notice how seemingly deferential Mr Trump was to President Xi at the South Korean meeting? His boasting and muscle flexing came only after the meeting, on a US television programme. He could talk down on small Greenland, threatening to annex it, bomb boats in Venezuelan waters in defiance of international law, and cocked a snook at Canada which he coveted on behalf of the US. But to the iconoclastic and defiant North Korea armed with nuclear weapons, Cuba, China and Russia, he would never dare. It’s the nature of brutes and bullies – traits exemplified by Mr Trump’s narrow-mindedness on Taiwan – to know their limits. But on this subject, Nigeria is befuddled.

  • The Trump challenge and a call for patriotic voices

    The Trump challenge and a call for patriotic voices

    • By Tunde Rahman

    In an age when the lines between truth and falsehood are getting increasingly blurred, I was nonplussed when President Trump labelled Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern on October 31. My incredulity was heightened given that his action stemmed from unproven allegations of genocide against Christians. Was it another deepfake facilitated through AI or simply a case of mistaken identity? 

    I was of the view that President Trump might have actually meant another country, and not Nigeria. He had, after all, adopted a similar approach in December 2020, which proved quite unsuccessful. President Biden, who succeeded him in office, rightly removed the designation barely a year later, in November 2021, convinced, as most had been, that Trump’s action was based on unverified allegations. 

    The US President has since doubled down on the labelling, threatening to take military action against Nigeria’s Islamists and terrorists. My scepticism derived from the premise that the facts on the ground, indeed the Nigerian situation, do not align with what can be termed a Christian genocide or genocide of any sort, as exemplified in the recent Israeli massacre of Palestinian people, including children.

    It is thus not surprising that top Nigerian government functionaries – from Foreign Affairs Minister Yusuf Tuggah and Minister of Information and National Orientation Idris Mohammed, as well as most commentators – have already debunked the claim of Christian genocide or wholly Christian killings in Nigeria. The country may still be having some security issues to contend with; however, they argue that there are no targeted killings of Christians, let alone a Christian genocide.  

    Indeed, a recent investigative report by the BBC Global Disinformation Unit has picked holes in the threadbare claims of a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria. In very stark details, the report highlights how the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) and allied Igbo ethnic advocacy and pro-Biafra groups circulated inflated figures and unverified narratives. 

    Titled “Are Christians Being Persecuted in Nigeria as Trump Claims?” the report was authored by Olaronke Alo and Chiamaka Enendu of the BBC Global Disinformation Unit, along with a Lagos-based journalist, Ijeoma Ndukwe. The writers examined the origins and veracity of claims that over 125,000 Christians had been killed and 19,000 churches burned down in Nigeria since 2009. 

    Apparently driven by some ulterior motive, when contacted by the BBC, Intersociety, which first disseminated the allegation of Christian killings,  failed to provide enumerated data or verifiable sources to substantiate its claims and demonstrate the integrity of the figures and their conclusions. Instead, the organisation accused the BBC of being politically compromised. Unfortunately, these unreliable data cobbled by Intersociety were the exact figures cited by the Conservative Media in the US, and prominent politicians like Senator Ted Cruz and Congressman Riley Moore. Sadly, these same figures were what President Trump relied upon in his designation of Nigeria as a CPC. 

    Read Also: Trump’s threat of war against Nigeria

    The point is: there is no  Christian persecution or mass killings in Nigeria. There are no state-sanctioned killings of Christians. The state does not condone it, as Nigeria has no state religion. President Bola Tinubu is a moderate Muslim who allows religious freedom in his household. He is not a religious fundamentalist. A man who so liberally allows religious freedom in his household cannot conceivably turn around and disallow the same in the larger society.

    Beyond that, however, and that piece of good journalism and useful revelation by the BBC, which laid bare the claim of Nigerian Christian genocide, the CPC labelling nonetheless offers a useful cautionary tale in crisis management. And this is why the government’s response to the challenge has been subtle and restrained. It is indeed the right thing to do, given the threat that it represents – albeit for the wrong reason. 

    It may sound paradoxical, but the best way to prove that an argument proceeds from a false premise is by continually pointing out the falsehood therefrom. It’s truly heart-warming that the government has continued to navigate the present critical situation carefully, handling the matter diplomatically and laying out the facts and proper position of things to President Trump, the US Conservative Media, the evangelicals and politicians. That way, they can see their mistake and make informed decisions.

    The ongoing momentum of the reforms undertaken by President Tinubu, which has engendered economic recovery, a slowdown in inflation, naira stability, and the gradual return of investors, must be maintained and carefully nurtured so that no development endangers it. The government must continue to stay on course. Remarkably, despite some fluctuations in the naira exchange rate over the past few days, the global investor confidence in the growing positive prospects of the Nigerian economy has remained on the rise. This is evident in the oversubscription of the country’s $2.3 billion eurobond last week.

     Reacting to the development, last Thursday, during the Federal Executive Council meeting in Abuja, as he inaugurated two new ministers appointed to fill the cabinet vacancies, President Tinubu disclosed that the Federal Government was engaging diplomatically with the world on the issue.

    “The most important thing is the fact that despite the political headwinds and the fear of our people, we will continue to engage with partners. The success of the $2.3 billion eurobond, which investors oversubscribed by 400%, is the most reassuring. So, the task ahead is immense; we are engaging the world diplomatically, and we assure all of you that we will defeat terrorism in this country.”

    With the recent rejig of the nation’s military and security apparatus, following the appointment of new service chiefs and a reshuffle within the intelligence circle, the battle against terrorism, banditry, and violent crimes will be reinvigorated. President Tinubu implored Nigerians not to succumb to despair, assuring that the government would defeat every form of terrorism and secure every part of the country.

     “Do we have problems? Yes. Are we challenged by terrorism? Yes. But we will defeat terrorism. We will overcome the CPC designation. Nigeria is one happy family, and we shall spare no effort until we eliminate all criminals from our society. We want our friends to help us as we step up our fight against terrorism, and we will eliminate it,” he said.

    What the nation requires now are patriotic voices. Our leaders must stand up to be counted, while politicians, too, must drop their divisive togas and don the patriotic cap in defence of the country. The present challenge is neither about Nigerian Christians nor about the war against terrorists. There are clearly some other underlying motives. The US President cannot possibly love Nigeria more than the people of Nigeria. Former Kano State governor and National Leader of the Nigeria National Peoples Party, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, and former Foreign Affairs Minister and ex-Jigawa State governor, who is also a top chieftain of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party, Alhaji Sule Lamido, have seen through this unfair designation and have led the way in this direction.

    More Nigerian leaders need to speak up as statesmen. By presenting the facts to President Trump and the international community in a convincing and non-adversarial manner, we must demonstrate that we are not a disgraced people and that Nigeria is by no means a “disgraced country.”

    In all of this, though, we mustn’t fail to note the befuddling silence in the typically voluble quarters of our political space. So, it is fitting to ask: Where are former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his former deputy and defeated PDP 2023 presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, who is preparing for another presidential run in 2027, at this critical moment?

    • Rahman is Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media & Special Duties
  • Trump declares Nigeria Country of Particular Interest: the predisposing factors

    Trump declares Nigeria Country of Particular Interest: the predisposing factors

    Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria.Thousands of Christians are being killed.  Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a ‘country of particular concern.’

    “But that is the least of it. When Christians, or any such group, are slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria  something must be done! I am asking Congressman Riley Moore, together with Chairman Tom Cole and the House Appropriations Committee, to immediately look into this matter and report back to me.” – President  Donald Trump in a post on his Truth Social.

    Ever rambunctious and irascible, President Donald Trump of America did not just wake up, as if from a bad dream, to declare Nigeria a Country of Particular Interest(CPC).

    Before he did, a slew of  congressmen and other stakeholders had bombarded him with reports of the killings in Nigeria, especially in Christian communities where thousands are, of a truth, being killed, their houses and churches incinerated, those alive banished for ever from their ancestral lands on the pain of death, the names of their lands promptly changed, and Sharia declared.

    All these obviously to the satisfaction of Northern Muslims, most of who are eager to see the whole of Nigeria declared a Muslim country.

    Truth be told, these sundry killers – bandits, Fulani herder terrorists, Boko Haram, ISWAP etc also kill Muslims, but  never as intentionally targeted as their Christians counterparts.

    President Trump was moved to this action by an  appeal from a U.S law maker to the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to take  immediate diplomatic action against Nigeria over what he described as the systematic persecution and slaughter of Christians in Nigeria; a country  he described as the deadliest place in the world for Christians”.

    He called for Nigeria’s re-designation as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) and for the suspension of arms sales to it until the government demonstrates a “tangible commitment” to ending the violence. Citing figures from Open Doors, he claimed that more than 7,000 Christians had been killed in 2025 alone and that at least 19,100 churches have been  destroyed since 2009″.

    How did we get here?

    Let me start off by saying that the U.S action is a massive stricture of the incumbent Nigerian Federal government and  there is a lot President Tinubu can do to both rectify the ugly situation, and   molify President Trump who has shown, severally, that he hasn’t the  slightest respect for international law.

    I have always believed that Nigeria was bound to suffer this embarrassment of being described by President Trump as  a “disgraced country”, but to properly situate that, we would have to go far back, that is, beyond the Tinubu administration, all the way back to that of President Buhari when the entire Nigerian security apparatti was under the  stranglehold of Northern Muslim generals whose primary, but undeclared, interest alongside President  Buhari himself, was to see Sharia  extended over all of Nigeria.

    Buhari and some other significant Northern leaders are on record as saying that fighting Boko Haram is the equivalent of fighting Almighty Allah.

    This reminds me of my article of 17 May, 2020 titled:”Waves and Waves of  Northerners  Coming South Despite Ban on Interstate Travel: What is a  Presidential order now worth”, from which I shall quote at some length in this article.

    I wrote: “Now  with the new massive resurgence of banditry in Katsina,  Kaduna and Zamfara,  he (Professor Ibrahim Gambari, then newly appointed Buhari’s Chief of Staff) should be able to dig deep into both the Boko Haram and banditry conundrum with a view to reaching an agreement which would stanch the ferocious blood letting in the north and put a stop to the billions of dollars the government was wasting but which  could  be put to much better use, especially in the North which accounts for more than 70 percent of the country’s poverty index.

    He should equally devote some time to seriously interrogate the nuisance the Fulani Nationality Movement, (FUNAM) is fast turning to.

    As recent as on  2 May, 2020, that atavistic organisation issued a statement to Northerners who were then being furiously  rushed southwards:

    Read Also: Trump, not Nigeria, is of particular concern to the world

    “We your leaders held meetings across the key Northern States of Sokoto, Bornu, Katsina,  Kano, Yobe, Kebi, Bauchi and Kaduna. Our resolve is that Northern youths should move, enmasse, to Southern States. Relaunch the mass movement in ways they have never seen … If the towns and cities are hostile,  hang out on the street corners, in uncompleted buildings, occupy the forests, pitch tents, make anywhere available as your abode, your rest places, your home.We urge you to be armed. The infidels may want to attack you”.

    What was that if not a Jihad declaration, eager to dip the bible in the sea as Ahmadu Bello admonished them long time ago?

    That is one of the precursors to President Trump’s threat.

    Then to the issue of the day, a grievous  matter of great national interest, given the way Northerners are being rushed to the South in waves, after waves, even after President Buhari had expressly banned inter-state travel.

    In my view, this indicates that torrid days  are ahead with regard to insecurity in the country as these people could very well be killer herdsmen, elements of Boko Haram/ISWAP soldiers or  outright bandits. They are being moved like consignments of commodities, hidden behind cows or cement, and covered with very heavy tapaulen.

    All these in a country where even the President is preaching social distancing as a means of checking the spread of covid-19.

    That is  the way some evil-minded characters are being transported from the extremities of Northern Nigeria, in blazing sun and inclement weather, over hundreds of kilometers to forment trouble in the Middle Belt and Southern Nigeria.

    The hurried manner in which they are being moved point to the fact that the people behind this scheme are up to no good. They are either preparing for a massive uprising in the South or, alternatively, trying to plant an advance party for RUGA which the South rejected, to the last man, and will continue to reject even with the last drop of their blood. Initially coyly presented by the Federal Government as a silver bullet for herders/farmers clashes, RUGA was to have seen Fulani herdsmen as well as elements of Boko Haram, respledently settled in  well – provisioned new towns, carved out from other peoples’ ancestral lands, while the owners of the land would have been left to eke out life in their old, decrepit ways.

    “That this exodus of biblical proportions are being presented to vigilante groups in the South as commodity consignments, is certainly ill- intentioned and the fact that the Inspector General of Police has not  deemed  it fit to say  anything about it, says a lot”.

    God bless the eagle- eyed vigilantes who were not deceived as many of these un-invited guests were immediately turned back where they came from, even though it is certain many of our forests down South may by now be crawling with thousands of  killer herdsmen, elements of Boko Haram etc”.

    That last bit, that is,  their being in our forests,  though conjectural, is a very reasonable supposition, given their battle order from FUNAM, and whoever wants to dispute it must first explain to  Nigerians how,  with the President’s express ban on interstate travel still subsisting , these people  are able to come  down, all the way, from the furtherest corners of the North, without  being stopped by security agents who ought to have felt duty bound to, at least, respect the President’s directive on interstate travels. Of course, Nigerians are no longer  deceived.

    A study by the Chinua Achebe Foundation has long shown that when Fulani herdsmen/ terrorists are to attack in a given  area, directives are usually given from the top, to security  agents, military or whatever, around the target area not to intervene in any manner. They only show up long after the killings.

    It is obvious that this exodus, hidden under the covid-19 lockdown, must be a much bigger project than the well known Fulani herdsmen’s/ terrorists murdering escapades,  but whatever the motive or motives, those behind this project should know that things have  since changed in the South.

    The people have taken their security into their own hands and would respect no orders not to respond in kind if attacked or

     if their ancestral  lands come under any threat. They should know that in  no way would they overrun the South like they did Benue,  Plateau, Borno and some other Northern states.

    Nobody in these parts would live to see total strangers take an inch of their ancestral lands.

    God bless Dr Junaid Mohammed who has honestly called on his Northern brethren who might be behind all these shenanigans to think again . He has suggested that security operatives who collude in this matter should be investigated and those found guilty be  brought to book; but we know that is where it ends because those behind the macabre dance are executing an ethnic and religious agenda to make Nigeria the Fulani homeland as FUNAM has severally asserted, and Nigeria proclaimed a Muslim country.

    FUNAM is never tired of saying Nigeria is the only country Allah gave Fulanis as their homeland.To justify that  joke , a people who arrived Nigeria for the first time ever in the 1800’s, and as tenants of the Hausas,  are now claiming a one thousand year ownership of Nigeria.

    Prof Gambari should be able to let them know their history, in case they have forgotten it.

    One other thing they should know though, is that recent experiences in  Africa, and the world at large, have shown that nobody is too big, important,  or powerful, that cannot find him or herself in a REFUGE CAMP, ESPECIALLY IN A FOREIGN LAND.

    That is where the Trump threat becomes very resonant.

    A stitch in time can still save nine if those behind the spoilation, and ruination, of Christian communities, especially in Northern Nigeria will not desist.

    As to the U.S attacking Nigeria, I trust President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to be able to diplomatically, and meaningfully engage  President Trump, to see why the U. S and Nigeria deserve nothing but healthy and cordial relationship.

    But he owes it a duty to peace – loving Nigerians, to first rein in these enemies within, no matter their status or how untouchable they consider themselves.

  • Trump’s war against Nigeria

    Trump’s war against Nigeria

    Religious and political leaders in Nigeria have been generally ambivalent over United States President Donald Trump’s plan to levy war of some kind on Nigeria, a country he contemptuously dismissed as disgraced. If Christian leaders oppose him, they fear the church might consider them as apostates indifferent to the plight of their persecuted members. If Muslim leaders oppose the US plan, they also fear they might be equated with the terrorists who have laid the Northeast and Northwest waste. Worsening the dilemma for faith leaders is how to agree on the definition of genocide. But they really don’t need a definitional consensus anymore than they need to agree on the genocide’s varying and largely inaccurate statistical underpinnings. Even US officials who have spoken on the so-called Christian genocide in Nigeria have based their arguments on conflicting and, in some cases, deliberately concocted data.

    Analysts and commentators have also encountered their own dilemmas over the genocide claims. If they present arguments about Mr Trump’s real aims, mostly different from his stated claims, they risk being judged as callous and cruel in their disregard for the thousands of lives lost to killers, particularly in the Middle Belt of Nigeria. And if they suggest that supporting the attack on terrorists in Nigeria would probably enable a solution to Nigeria’s terrorism problem, they risk being described as naïve or mentally insufficient. More than one week after Mr Trump first spoke about attacking Nigeria to deal with its terrorism problem, there has been no consensus on his justifications. There is unlikely to be any such consensus. Support for or opposition to the US plans is divided almost in almost equal half between Christians and Muslims. Pragmatists and patriots are smothered in-between the two dominant and unyielding groups.

    It is significant to note that the lobbyists who took the Christian case to the US, including the Catholic Bishop of Makurdi Diocese, Bishop Wilfred Anagbe, stopped short of framing the massacres in Benue State as religious genocide. They hinted very strongly that the killings were in many ways ethnic cleansing related to an orchestrated plan to grab and rename their lands. They wanted the US to intervene, but there was nothing in their letters and speeches that suggested they wanted unilateral military intervention. Their primary quest was for the US to pressure the Nigerian government, re-designate the country as a Country of Particular Concern in order to attract a welter of sanctions and naming and shaming of terror financiers and sponsors, and perhaps join the Nigerian military to wage war against the rampaging militias to force them to give up confiscated lands. But Mr Trump, seeking diversions from his domestic troubles, has gone a step further by threatening to attack Nigeria and using intemperate and contemptuous language. The lobbyists now have little choice but to associate with the US plan and claim credit for the ululation the Trump threat has raised.

    Indeed, given the acclamation the threat has elicited, particularly in the South and Middle Belt, many journeymen activists have tried to associate with the humiliating US campaign against Nigeria. Labour Party chieftain and former presidential candidate, Pat Utomi, swore he also lobbied the US against Nigeria and the killings. A US-based military veteran group associated with the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) has also claimed responsibility for stirring the US into bellicosity, and they have published one of the letters they wrote to that effect. A faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) last week chose the awkward moment of these times to petition the US Embassy in Nigeria against the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) which they accuse of fostering dictatorship. And the African Democratic Congress (ADC) has hemmed and hawed over the Trump threats, suggesting that while they fear the consequences of an attack, they nevertheless blame the government of the day for getting the country into this pretty pass.

    Read Also: EFCC returns N42.5m to 70-year-old widow defrauded by banker

    Only a few people among those brave enough to voice their feelings have warned that US intervention in Nigeria, despite the genuineness of the cause of the Middle Belters, is not and cannot be altruistic. They judge US interventions, some of which were undertaken for supposedly good reasons, to be bloody, disruptive, retrogressive, indiscriminate, and generally inimical to the victim country. Nigeria would not be an exception should the US carry out its plan. In any case, they queried, who would monitor and punish US racism, uncontrollable gun violence, and bureaucratic and institutional contradictions? The few Nigerians who chose not to be enthusiastic about the invasion threat argue that the US is surreptitiously interested in economic exploitation of Nigeria as well as checkmating Chinese and BRICS influence. They suggest further that there are many more countries on the list of Countries of Particular Concern who are not being threatened with invasion because they are either in the US orbit already, such as some Middle Eastern countries, or are Asian countries who have either sucked it up to Mr Trump or are too powerful to be messed with.

    What is clear in all the analyses of the terror war in Nigeria is that massacres are taking place in various parts of the North, including in Christian and Muslim towns, with casualties almost evenly spread. Though the situation has improved considerably, the failure to put an end to the killings quickly has exposed Nigeria to unsavoury threats and categorisation. It is embarrassing that the country may now obviously redouble its effort to curb terrorism on account of the US threat. But whether that will be enough to cause the warmongering American president to stand down remains to be seen. There are reports of backchannel diplomatic engagements ongoing; however, the Nigerian authorities must be mindful of the fact that they represent 230 million people, the largest and preeminent concentration of Black people in the world. In the final analysis, despite their many failings, including in the battle against massacres and genocides, Nigerians are mindful that whatever they, they represent the world’s Black people, and will prefer to die on their feet than on their knees. This is not sentiment. They know that Mr Trump has undisguised contempt for Blacks inside and outside the US, regards Nigeria as a disgrace, and remains a bully without any moral compass. Yes, they recognise the enormous military power of the US, but they also know that that power had repeatedly come unstuck in the face of war with Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq among others.

    While America may be rightly concerned about the killings in the Christian areas of Nigeria, it imperiously and suspiciously feigns ignorance of the killings in Muslim states. If Mr Trump truly wants to help, he knows what to do, and everyone in Nigeria, including those who are foolishly egging him on, knows what he should do. But the path he has chosen, if executed, may tragically complicate the war on terror for Nigeria, and the country, if it survives the intervention, may never be the same again. As many countries have shown in recent decades, no one can predict the course of a war, no to talk of how it ends. Everything is often open-ended. The past one week has been so frenetic that it is uncertain the country has ever felt this way before, with a threat of invasion looming over it. Mr Trump confesses himself to be evil and undeserving of heaven; but it is such a man that some groups in Nigeria have made their champion. He glamourises war and bloodshed, and has repeatedly connived at the mistreatment of Blacks and Hispanics, and sneered at international law, but some Christian leaders shrug their shoulders. For Mr Trump, might is right. Once such a man gets a foothold in Nigeria, there is no telling what the unscrupulous and rapacious politician and businessman will do.

    Sadly, the combination of Fulani exceptionalism and religious prejudices in the North had long stunted government’s response to overt acts of bureaucratic unfairness, discrimination, and perversion of justice. It is hoped that rather than being defensive, the North will use this moment to recalibrate its culture, policies and jurisprudence. Might may be right for some powerful groups in Nigeria; but as events have shown, much more might can be imposed from outside. For years, Nigeria was unable to expose terror financiers and courageously deal with sponsors in high places. For years, it was unable to unite its people behind great national causes. And for years, lands had been forcibly seized by militias and cleansed of their original owners. Now, an unscrupulous outsider is calling Nigeria to question. If Nigeria wishes to oppress its minorities or those who are ethnically and religiously different, then it must strive amorally to be like the US, China, North Korea, India, Russia, et al, who are too strong to be questioned by outsiders or imposed upon. Until Nigeria acquires such muscles, it had better put its house in order. But even after restructuring the country and finding a political equilibrium by which to ensure stability and peace, it must still need to rearm, fund scientific research in missile (ballistic missiles) and anti-missile (interceptors) programmes, and establish itself as a continental military power. Its benevolent neutrality and schoolboy approach to power are unprofitable and continue to expose it to the kind of predatory and humiliating remarks by Mr Trump. Who ever thought the day would come when the most populous black nation on earth would be exposed as impotent and ridiculed, ridicule partly conjured by Nigerians destitute of national pride and identity?

    Trump breathes threats against Nigeria, Oct 31

    “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. 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. When Christians, or any such group, is slaughtered like is happening in Nigeria (3,100 versus 4,476 Worldwide), something must be done! I am asking Congressman Riley Moore, together with Chairman Tom Cole and the House Appropriations Committee, to immediately look into this matter, and report back to me. The United States cannot stand by while such atrocities are happening in Nigeria, and numerous other countries. We stand ready, willing, and able to save our Great Christian population around the world!”

    Imperial, warmongering Trump on Truth Social, Nov 1

    “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!”

    Sen. Ted Cruz sponsors legislation against Nigeria, Nov 4

    “I’ve been pushing legislation to designate Nigeria a CPC and to impose sanctions on the Nigerian officials responsible. Thank you to President Trump for your leadership in imposing the designation, and more broadly, for fighting to stop the murder of Christians in Nigeria. Now we should take the next step and hold Nigerian officials accountable. I intend to be very explicit about who they are in the coming days and weeks.”

  • Trump, not Nigeria, is of particular concern to the world

    Trump, not Nigeria, is of particular concern to the world

    Since Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ugly encounter with American President Donald Trump in the latter’s Oval Office in Washington DC on February 28, I have come to the conclusion that the American President is a bully who thinks nothing more of power than a tool for oppression. In the midst of Ukraine’s war with Russia, President Zelensky had visited Trump at the White House to discuss a minerals agreement and secure continued US support for Ukraine in her fight against Russia’s invasion. But about 40 minutes into the meeting and in front of dozens of cameras in the room, Zelensky found himself sandwiched between President Trump and his deputy, J.D. Vance, as they derailed the meeting and minerals deal and descended on their guest in an unprecedented public confrontation between an American President and a foreign head of state.

    Trump, a supposed ally of Zelensky in Ukraine’s war with Russia following the latter’s invasion of the former’s territory, wanted Ukraine to agree on a ceasefire with Russia in order to halt hostilities and work towards a comprehensive peace deal. Trump, a known friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin, suddenly came to the decision that Ukraine was to blame for Russia’s invasion of her territory. He then went on to tag Zelensky, the weaker party in the dispute, as a dictator! Nearly all of US allies, along with other global figures, voiced their support for Zelensky, with many issuing statements to rebuke Trump for his confrontational disposition.

    Three months later, it was the turn of South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to get the Trump treatment. In a pure case of ambush, President Trump, in the middle of a meeting with Ramaphosa inside the same Oval Office at the White House, called for the lights to be dimmed so he could play a video to back up allegations of genocide against white South Africans. A thoroughly embarrassed Ramaphosa sat mouth agape as Trump hauled at him allegations of racism and mass murder of white South African farmers. The South African President tried to push back on Trump’s assertion, admitting that there is “criminality” in the country but most of the victims are black, but Trump was neither persuaded nor convinced.

    READ ALSO; FULL LIST: Burna Boy, Wizkid, Davido, Ayra Starr, others nominated for 2026 Grammy awards

    The same Trump has engaged China, Canada and other countries around the world in unwarranted diplomatic rows, embarrassing his countrymen and almost subjecting them to ridicule in a tax war with China. A man whose successive marriage to three different women collapses is certainly the one in need of self introspection.

    As it has turned out, Nigeria is confronted with the fate that befell South Africa at Trump’s hands with another unfounded allegation of genocide against Christians leveled by Trump against the Tinubu administration. The American president had Friday last week shocked the country with a post on X (formerly Twitter), accusing Nigeria of genocide against its Christian population. And while the populace was trying to come to terms with the bombshell from the blue, he made another post, threatening to invade the country with American soldiers “gun-a-blazing”.

    Ordinarily, news of American soldiers coming to complement the efforts of our armed forces in the bid to end the reign of terror that has been unleashed on the nation for more than one and a half decades should gladden the heart. But the antecedents of both Trump and America in such matters would be a cause for concern for any patriot. Similar interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and other countries before now have ended in regrets for the populace. In most cases, the interventions are based on fallacies aimed at pursuing the selfish economic agenda of America.

    In the case of Nigeria, there are already enough grounds to believe that the fate that awaits it in the event of an intervention would not be any different from those of Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan where America had previously called the dog a bad name in order to hang it.

    A more viable option would be that America supports our armed forces with cutting edge arms and other military equipment to help our soldiers in the fight against terrorism. But while Trump is not oblivious of this alternative, he finds President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s ‘sins’ against him and the American nation too serious to be dealt with remotely. Observers say he has not forgiven the Nigerian President over his alleged support along with other democrats like French President Emmanuel Macron for Kamala Harris, the democrats’ candidate in the election that brought Trump into office, for fear that Trump as American president would be a veritable threat to world peace.

    Added to the foregoing is the quiet economic revolution the Tinubu government is steering in Nigeria. If any country or head of state is in love with the strides in the nation’s economic sphere, it certainly cannot be America or Trump. Before now, the US had reaped bountifully from refining our crude oil and exporting same to our country to deplete our foreign reserves. But with the Dangote Refinery now in full operation and other indigenous ones coming on board, the nation no longer has to depend on the US for her fuel needs. This does not only mean a huge loss of revenue for the US, it is also a huge loss of jobs for its populace. Many US refineries whose survival depended on Nigeria’s crude are said to have folded up. Besides, the naira has stabilised and has continued to appreciate against the dollar.

    It will be clear from the foregoing that Trump’s outbursts and threats against Nigeria are products of a frustrated mind.

  • Issues in the Trump threat (1)

    Issues in the Trump threat (1)

    Two incidents demonstrate the mischief, opportunism, outright falsehood and simplistic self-sabotage often characteristic of the narratives on violence and insecurity in Nigeria, which led the mercurial President Donald Trump to threaten direct military action against Islamic terrorists in the country perpetrating what he described as genocide against Christians. First, is the letter by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to Trump, portraying himself as a ‘prisoner of conscience’ currently under illegal detention in Nigeria and a victim of the alleged persecution against Christians that the American President is furious about.

    Forcibly brought back into the country after he had jumped bail and fled abroad from where he incessantly launched incendiary radio broadcasts and social media posts inciting violence in Nigeria and advocating the balkanization of the country and the creation of the sovereign state of Biafra in the Southeast, acts which constitute crimes against the Nigerian State, Kanu has been on trial since 2020 for treason, incitement to murder and arson among other charges. Last week, the unrelenting publisher and veteran of social protests, Omoyele Sowore, organised a one-day protest against what he described as Kanu’s unduly prolonged trial, calling for the truncation of the Judicial process and the immediate release of the IPOB leader. The free Kanu protests, predictably, did not gain traction.

    It did not matter to Sowore that Kanu had explored every trick in the book to stall the trial. Kanu obviously does not want a trial. There are social media posts of him ordering his followers to kill, destroy property, attack security agencies and commit assorted atrocities. For years, the sit-at-home protests in the Southeast, which he instigated on Mondays, laid the economy of the region prostrate, disrupted the education of school children and led to the deaths of large numbers of people who were murdered for going about their legitimate business on Mondays. His direct incitements and directives from his base abroad played a key role in the violence perpetrated in Lagos during the #EndSARS protests in Lagos in 2020, leading to scores of deaths and the destruction of private and public property estimated at over N2 trillion in the country’s economic capital and commercial nerve centre.

    Yet, according to Nigerian law, Kanu remains innocent until proven guilty through Judicial due process. But he refuses to enter his defence, preferring to constitute himself into a court of law and pronouncing ex cathedra that he has no case to answer and should be released immediately. In his letter to Trump, Kanu claims he is being persecuted for his Christian faith. He calls on the American leader to probe the killings in the Southeast, which he insinuates is an example of genocide against Christians in Nigeria, even when it is militant Igbo separatists who have unleashed violence against fellow Igbos, whom they perceive as not aligning with their cause. Simon Ekpa, the self-styled Prime Minister of the Sovereign Republic of Biafra, is currently serving a six-year jail term in Finland, where he was tried and convicted for inciting destructive violence against Nigeria from that country.

    But Kanu’s letter to Trump is instructive. It illustrates the kind of deliberately misleading propaganda against the Nigerian State that prompted Trump to threaten unilateral military action in Nigeria against what he described as the inaction of the Nigerian government to check genocide against Christians in the country. An investigation by the Global Disinformation Unit of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) revealed “how the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) and allied Igbo ethnic advocacy groups propagated inflated figures and unverified narratives that have reverberated across international political and religious circles”. Staff of the BBC Global Disinformation Unit, including Olaronke Alo, Chiamaka Enendu and a journalist based in Nigeria, Ijeoma Ndukwe, investigated the origins and credibility of claims that over 125,000 Christians have been killed and 19,000 churches destroyed in Nigeria since 2009.

    According to the report, “When contacted by the BBC, Intersociety failed to provide itemised data or verifiable sources to substantiate its casualty claims.  Instead, the organisation accused the BBC of being politically compromised. The BBC’s findings suggest that Intersociety’s methodology lacks transparency and raises serious concerns about the intent behind its reporting. Despite the absence of credible evidence, these claims gained traction in U.S. political discourse, culminating in President Donald Trump labelling Nigeria “a country of particular concern” and threatening military action over what he described as a “Christian genocide”.

    Of course, Intersociety and any other interest groups have the right to project their worldview, shape narratives from their perspectives and lobby International public opinion to achieve their objectives. One positive of the Trump threat is that it should prompt the Nigerian authorities to also actively put the other side of the story across so that outsiders can have the necessary facts to undertake a more objective appraisal of the complexities of Nigeria’s social-cultural and religious plurality and the nuanced realities of the country’s security challenges.

    Again, effective information management and dissemination outside Nigeria is as critical as within the country in a globalised world. Thus, Trump’s threat is predicated on the assumption that the Tinubu government is either complicit in encouraging ‘Christian genocide’ or not doing anything concrete to rein in violence and insecurity. But as the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Alhaji Mohammed Idris, has pointed out, security agencies under the Tinubu administration have so far killed 13,500 terrorists, arrested about 17,000 suspected terrorists and freed 9,800 victims since 2023. Even the United States and the United Kingdom commended Nigeria’s security agencies for the arrest and ongoing prosecution of two notorious terrorism suspects, Mahmud Muhammad Usman and Abubakar Abba of the ANSARU terror group.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s security not negotiable — Tinubu

    Scores of notorious bandits’ leaders and hundreds of their foot soldiers across Northern Nigeria have been neutralised in intensified onslaughts against terrorists over the last two years. It would be another positive of the Trump threat if it prompts us to tell the story of these anti-terror successes more effectively, particularly to international audiences from now on. It is also important to continuously make the international community aware of the complex dynamics of violence and insecurity in Nigeria. President Trump has been misled into believing that what is happening in Nigeria is a targeted killing of Christians by Islamic terrorists on a genocidal scale. Yes, Christians have been most affected by the violence in highly populated Christian communities in Benue, Plateau, Taraba and Southern Kaduna.

    But in the same vein, Muslims have suffered higher casualties from religious terrorism in such dominant Muslim States as Borno, Katsina, Zamfara, Yobe and Niger States. The conflicts in parts of the North stem from antagonism between Fulani herdsmen and native Hausa communities. In the Southeast, what has been experienced is essentially Igbo-on-Igbo violence as “unknown gunmen” have engaged in the ruthless elimination of their kinsmen who either violate sit-at-home directives or are employed in Nigerian security agencies. But in the final analysis, the Nigerian State must urgently enhance and upgrade its capacity to protect the lives and property of Nigerians irrespective of their faith or ethnicity, as well as maintain the country’s territorial integrity.

    For instance, during the confirmation screening of Service Chiefs by the Senate, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, called for a comprehensive reform of the police to enable it to take care of internal security so as to free the military to focus on external defence. The much-delayed issue of State police must now assume greater urgency. This is not the sole responsibility of President Tinubu. It requires coordinated collaborative effort among state governors, State and national legislators and the presidency. The current over-centralised security architecture must be redesigned to reflect the country’s federal, plural character for greater efficiency and efficacy.

    Again, President Tinubu, a few months ago, announced plans to establish and inaugurate the Forest Rangers outfit to safeguard and secure the country’s vast forests. It has become imperative to quickly actualise this initiative, which could be a game-changer, as much of the atrocities committed by terrorists, bandits, and religious extremists revolve around the forests. President Tinubu’s response to Trump’s threat was mature, restrained and statesmanlike despite being firm in refuting allegations of Christian genocide. The appointment of envoys, especially in key countries, is clearly not an economic drain. It would foster the requisite diplomatic interaction at the highest levels that would prevent potentially catastrophic deterioration in relationships largely caused by avoidable gaps in communication.

  • Trump’s threat of war against Nigeria

    Trump’s threat of war against Nigeria

    SIR: Nigeria made global news headlines last weekend when she was not only designated as a Country of Particular Concern by the United States of America, US President, Donald Trump, took it a notch higher by threatening to invade the country “guns-a-blazing” in order to stop the killing of Christians by Islamic terrorists. As expected, Trump’s incendiary rhetoric against the country elicited a powerful rebuttal from the federal government amidst shock, alarm, and indignation from many Nigerians.

     This isn’t the first time that Nigeria has been designated as a Country of Particular Concern by the US. Nigeria was initially put on the repugnant list in 2020 during President Trump’s first tenure in the White House but her name was blotted out by President Joe Biden in 2021.

     Truth be told, Trump’s concern about the killing of Christians in Nigeria is not totally unfounded. However, it is not the full picture. Since 2011 till date, Islamic terrorism, banditry, insurgency, kidnapping, farmers and herders’ clashes, religious killings, and widespread criminality have plagued northern Nigeria. It is not only Christians that are being killed. As a matter of fact, more Muslims have been killed by these societal deviants because they are in the majority in the northern part of the country. According to the Vice President Kashim Shettima, the Boko Haram insurgency claimed over 100,000 lives. All killings are condemnable irrespective of the faith of its victims.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu last chance to enter defence or forfeit same

    Even though Trump’s verbiage is totally condemnable and his proposed plan of action a violation of our sovereignty, my advice to President Tinubu is to avoid treating this issue with kid gloves. His current military intervention against Venezuela is a pointer to the gravity of the situation in our hands.

     It should be noted that in recent history, American military intervention, whether justifiable or unjustifiable, has never ended well for the target nations. They have always ended up destabilized and worse off than before the intervention. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia are examples of countries currently in chaos due to American military intervention in one form or the other.

     What we need is collaboration with the Americans to stop the wanton killings of innocent citizens. This is where diplomacy and political will come into play. We need the latest arms, ammunition, military gadgetry, and intelligence from the Americans to help stem the rising tide of bloodshed in the land. Sharia law, which has fueled the rise of religious killings for incidents like blasphemy and desecration of religious books, should be abrogated. Those sponsoring Islamic terrorism should be apprehended and made to face the music. State police is a must if we are serious about curbing the rampant insecurity in the country.

    • Peter Ovie Akus, Ontario, Canada.
  • Trump’s war rhetoric and the contradictions within

    Trump’s war rhetoric and the contradictions within

    SIR: The United States military has reportedly developed a range of contingency plans for potential military action in Nigeria, following a directive from U.S. President Donald Trump. According to The New York Times, the U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) has submitted a set of operational options to the Department of War at the request of Secretary Pete Hegseth.

    This development comes on the heels of Trump’s inflammatory accusation that the Nigerian government permits the “mass slaughter” of Christians—a claim that Nigerian officials have strongly denied.

    Earlier, Trump had designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), suspended U.S. arms sales, and halted technical assistance to the country.

    These actions follow months of lobbying by right-wing U.S. lawmakers and evangelical pressure groups. Their claims, however, ignore the complex, multi-layered realities of Nigeria’s security challenges—rooted not merely in religion, but in issues of poverty, inequality, climate pressures, and governance failures.

    The problem with such Western narratives is that they often reduce multi-dimensional problems into simplistic ethno-religious categories. This distortion fuels misunderstanding and invites foreign interference under the guise of humanitarian concern.

    The irony is that the United States, the self-appointed guardian of global democracy and human rights, has one of the world’s worst records of gun violence and racial discrimination.

    Recent data shows that over 117,000 people are shot annually in the U.S., leading to nearly 43,000 deaths—including homicides, suicides, and accidental shootings. Black children and teens face a four-fold higher risk of being killed by gunfire compared to their white peers. This simply means a person of colour or from minority groups is more likely to die from gun violence in the US than in war-torn Sudan.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Court gives Nnamdi Kanu last chance to enter defence or forfeit same

    Yet, no country has ever designated the U.S. as “unsafe for minorities,” despite its deep racial divisions and systemic injustices. No foreign government has proposed sanctions or “interventions” over the habitual violence of American police officers against Black citizens.

    Are we to ignore the fact that the Black Lives Matter movement emerged precisely from these enduring injustices? Or should we pretend that these problems have somehow disappeared just a few years later?

    Libya was not perfect under Muammar Gaddafi, but after the 2011 NATO invasion—led by the U.S.—it became a failed state, overrun by militias and slave markets. Iraq’s “liberation” produced sectarian war and ISIS. Syria’s civil war was prolonged by foreign meddling. Even Congo’s tragic history bears America’s fingerprints: the CIA orchestrated the assassination of Patrice Lumumba in 1962 and installed Mobutu Sese Seko, whose corrupt rule lasted three decades. Congo has never recovered.

    Still, beyond condemning Trump’s reckless rhetoric, Nigerians must confront their own contradictions. We must ask ourselves: are we truly a secular nation, or merely a country pretending to be one? Can a state that sponsors pilgrimages, funds religious institutions, and embeds faith in governance still claim neutrality?

    Can a government that refuses to prosecute religious violence credibly defend its commitment to equality before the law?

    Our hypocrisy has birthed impunity. It has allowed extremists to act with confidence, knowing there will be little or no consequences. If Nigeria is to withstand external pressures and assert its sovereignty, it must first fix the contradictions within.

    We must choose who we are: a secular democracy that protects all citizens equally or a divided federation where religion dictates policy and justice. Because until Nigeria resolves this internal struggle, it will remain vulnerable—to foreign exploitation, domestic chaos, and, as Trump’s latest posturing shows, the ever-present shadow of imperial arrogance.

    • Olalekan Adigun, Abuja