Prominent Nigerian politician and human rights activist, Shehu Sani, has dismissed allegations of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, labelling the claim a dangerous falsehood.
His rebuttal came in direct response to the decision by the administration of President Donald Trump to designate Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” for religious freedom, a move that has sparked significant controversy and debate.
Sani, a former senator who represented Kaduna Central, did not mince words in his rejection of the American position. He stated unequivocally, “There is ABSOLUTELY no Christian genocide in Nigeria.”
He characterised the US government’s declaration as being “triggered, founded and predicated on outrightly false, misleading and mischievous narratives and misinformation.” Furthermore, he accused those behind the narrative of aiming at “sowing the seeds and fanning the embers of division, discord and discontent in our country.”
The development that prompted this forceful reply marks a significant escalation in the US-Nigeria relationship. The designation by the Trump administration, championed by lawmakers such as Senator Ted Cruz, was based on reports of systematic, religiously-motivated violence.
However, Sani argued this perspective fundamentally misrepresents the complex and indiscriminate nature of the insecurity that has plagued Nigeria for well over a decade. He presented a starkly different picture of the conflict, insisting that the primary agents of violence—including Boko Haram, its splinter factions, and various armed bandit groups—do not discriminate by faith in their attacks.
“The real situation in Nigeria in the last fifteen years is that of terrorists and bandits targeting and killing Nigerians that are both Muslims and Christians,” Sani explained, providing the core of his counter argument.
To directly challenge the genocide narrative, he pointed to the demographic and geographical realities of the conflict zones, contending that Muslim communities have often suffered greater losses. “Without the need for rationalisation, Muslims have actually suffered more and recorded more casualties because of the areas those evil terrorists operate,” he stated.
To bolster this claim, he referenced a recent assessment from the US diplomatic mission within Nigeria itself, noting, “this truth is recently confirmed by the US Envoy in Nigeria who knows better than Senator Ted Cruz and his cohorts living thousands of kilometres from the shores of our country.”
This point highlights a central tension in the international debate: the perspective of officials on the ground versus that of politicians in Washington. Sani further questioned the logistical possibility of a targeted genocide, asking how such persecution could be technically feasible given the closely integrated Muslim-Christian ratio across Nigerian society.
He listed the diverse targets of terrorist groups to illustrate their nihilism and the shared nature of the national trauma: “Terrorists in Nigeria attacks Mosques and Churches, they kill Imams and Pastors and they kidnap Muslims and Christians.” He concluded this thought with a powerful unifying statement: “We are all victims confronted by a common danger.”
The development that appears to have particularly galvanised Sani’s response, beyond the general designation, is a specific provision within the legislative framework supported by Senator Cruz. He expressed deep offence at the bill that expanded on “‘taking steps against individuals who implement Sharia and Blasphemy laws’.” Sani described this as “a direct and unjust attack on the legal principles, ethos, way of life, sensitivities and sensibilities of Muslims in Nigeria.” This, for Sani, transformed the issue from one of misunderstood security analysis to one of sovereignty and cultural disrespect.
Emphatically asserting Nigeria’s right to self-determination, Sani declared, “Nigeria is an independent country, no foreign leader, foreign interest or foreign country can or should dictate to Nigerians how they wished to govern themselves, rule their lives or practice and protect the sacredness of their religion.”
On the specific matter of Sharia law, practiced in several northern states, he was unequivocal: “If the Muslims in Nigeria decided to run their lives with Sharia and blasphemy laws, its non of the business of the US.” He then pointedly questioned the selective application of such policies, noting, “If they cant sanction individuals who implement Sharia and blasphemy laws in Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi, why should it be differently applied here?”
The former senator also accused the US political establishment of hypocrisy on the principle of free speech. He contrasted America’s foreign policy pronouncements with its domestic actions, observing, “Recently, the US political establishment has gone hard on anyone who protested or posted anything they considered offensive or abusive or disrespectful of the sensitivities of their local and foreign interests.” He then posed a rhetorical question that underscored his point: “why should they practice censorship, restrictions and autocracy and preach freedom.”
In his concluding remarks, Shehu Sani described the “Country of Particular Interest” designation as “unconscionable and unacceptable.” He called for a pivot from condemnation to constructive collaboration, urging “Mr Trump should help and support Nigeria to crush terrorism and address its security challenges and not dictate or threaten us.”
Finally, he turned his criticism inward, issuing a stark warning to the local actors he accused of “peddled and exported these consignments of lies and deceit for their own personal political interests.” He urged them to “reflect on the consequences of their actions,” stating bluntly that they “will get nothing out of it.”
Sani concluded, “You can’t stain your country with faeces and expect the World to revere you.” Despite the current tensions, he ended on a note of resilience, affirming his belief that “Nigeria will overcome its challenges.”
Discussion about this post