Why Nigeria Must Reject the Narrative — and Embrace Reform

By Ephraim Agbo

When Donald J. Trump declared that “Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria” and warned of possible U.S. military intervention if Nigeria did not halt the killing of Christians, the statement jolted Nigerian politics, diplomacy and public discourse. The country must do more than recoil in indignation—it must respond with a clear, strategic, values-based and reform-oriented plan.

---

The problem with the rhetoric

1. Simplification & distortion.
   While there is no question that violence against Christians in Nigeria is real, the claim that Nigeria is facing a state-sponsored “Christian genocide” ignores the broader, complex reality of insecurity: the fact that both Christians and Muslims are victims of insurgency and criminal violence. Framing the insecurity as purely “Christians vs. radical Islamists” oversimplifies and risks inflaming sectarian divides rather than solving underlying issues.

2. Sovereignty and perception.
   Nigeria has rejected Trump’s characterisation, pointing to its constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom. To many Nigerians the U.S. rhetoric feels heavy-handed, undermining Nigeria’s agency and feeding into the narrative of external intervention or moralising from abroad rather than real partnership.

3. Risk of mis-directed responses.
   Rhetoric of threat and military intervention encourages short-term, militarised responses rather than sustained institutional reform. The danger: security becomes badge-politics rather than practice, and victims in remote communities remain prey.

---

Why Nigeria should not merely brush this off

1. External pressure can be a catalyst for internal reform.
   The U.S. designation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) means international attention, potential aid restrictions and reputational risk. That creates leverage — Nigeria should not shy from it, but rather use it to turbo-charge the reforms it already ought to be doing.

2. A moment of accountability.
   The spotlight offers an opportunity: Nigeria can say, “We accept the charge of our own failures — not the caricature — and here’s how we are going to fix it.” That will strengthen Nigeria’s sovereignty far more than posture alone.

3. Domestic stability and international reputation go hand-in-hand. Improving security, justice, inter‐faith relations and policing will not only protect citizens but also assure international partners that Nigeria is a serious state. Good governance attracts investment, development support and regional leadership.

---

What Nigeria must do — three mutually reinforcing tracks

A. Reject the mischaracterisation — firmly but diplomatically

• The government should call out exaggerated narratives that mislead: highlight facts, clarify that violence affects many communities, and assert Nigeria’s commitment to religious freedom.
• At the same time, it should invite transparent review or collaboration (not as a sign of weakness, but of confidence). A posture that combines dignity with openness strengthens credibility.

B. Accept the international pressure — convert it into concrete reform

• Use the U.S. CPC (Country of Particular Concern) designation as a framework: publish a “National Security & Religious Freedom” action plan with measurable milestones.
• Seek targeted technical assistance (not boots on the ground) from international partners: training for police, intelligence sharing, victim-witness programmes, justice sector reform.
• Link foreign aid, trade or investment terms to reform metrics; this turns pressure into incentives rather than threats alone.

C. Address the roots of violence — not merely the symptoms

• Strengthen community policing and local justice mechanisms so when violence breaks out, the state responds swiftly, visibly and fairly. Impunity must end.
• Tackle resource-conflict drivers: pastoral/agrarian clashes, land-use disputes, youth unemployment. These often masquerade as religious violence but are in fact local grievances.
• Support inter-faith dialogue, rebuild trust in mixed-faith communities, ensure that victims of violence (Christian, Muslim, others) get reparations and public recognition.

---

A suggested timeline & accountability framework

• Within 3 months: Publish a national reform document listing hotspots, security-response gaps, justice-sector backlog, victim support mechanisms, and budget lines.
• Within 6 months: Begin international partner talks (e.g., regional organisations, bilateral donors) for technical assistance; launch visible pilot programmes in one or two high-impact states.
• Within 12 months: Present independent progress audit (regionally credible body) showing reductions in attacks, arrests and prosecutions, improved community perceptions.
• Ongoing: Quarterly public updates of key indicators (incidents, peacemaking interventions, prosecutions), and annual “state of religious freedom” report.

---

Final word

Nigeria’s sovereignty is not about brushing off criticism—it’s about owning reform. The narrative from the United States, as presently framed, is distorted and unhelpful. But the underlying reality—of violence, weak institutions, communities under siege—demands urgent, sustained action. Nigeria should reclaim the narrative: say yes to protecting all Nigerians, say no to simplistic portrayals, and say yes to international partnership that empowers rather than undermines.

By doing so, Nigeria will show that it can — on its own terms and with credible partners — become stronger, safer and more respected. The alternative is remaining ever-on the defensive, subject to others’ framing, and offering citizens little more than empty assurances. That would be a real failure of sovereignty.