In recent weeks, much of the conversation surrounding the humanitarian and security crisis in Nigeria has shifted to the question of whether the violence taking place constitutes a genocide, particularly against Christian communities. High-profile voices such as Matthew Hassan Kukah, Catholic Bishop of Sokoto, and Reno Omokri, former presidential aide and commentator, have weighed in — but with markedly different emphases than earlier. This divergence is creating confusion and stirring debate over what is happening in Nigeria, how it is described, and how urgent the response should be.
The Changing Narrative: From “genocide” to “complex insecurity”
In archived statements, Bishop Kukah has not shied away from using strong language to describe Nigeria’s security crisis. He once referenced the situation in parts of the country as nearly a “killing field,” stating: “Nigerians are dying for a living.” In those statements, he acknowledged that Christians were among the most vulnerable: he noted how, in northern Nigeria, the phenomenon of targeted violence against Christian minorities (kidnapping of clergy, attacks on church property) was manifest.
Nevertheless, in statements issued in October 2025, Bishop Kukah urged against designating Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for religious freedom violations — noting that such a move could derail inter-faith dialogue and undermine ongoing peace processes. He told the global community: “We are not dealing with people going around wielding machetes to kill me because I am a Christian.”
For his part, Reno Omokri has taken a strong stance against the “Christian genocide” label. He described it as “misinformation,” stating that while Christians are being killed, so too are Muslims, and therefore there is no state-sponsored genocide against Christians. At a press event he asserted: “What we have in Nigeria is terrorism, not genocide.”
Key Facts and Claims: What is substantiated, what is in dispute
Here are some of the core claims and counterclaims, with what the latest news tells us:
Claim: Christian communities in Nigeria are being targeted in mass, systematic killings amounting to genocide.
Counter: According to an October 2025 AP report, a U.S. Senator’s claim that a “Christian mass murder” is ongoing in Nigeria lacks the evidence to meet the UN legal definition of genocide. The same article notes that violence affects Christians and Muslims, depending on region.
Claim: The government of Nigeria, or its agents, are complicit in creating or permitting a genocide.
Counter: Omokri, Buhari-era critics, and traditional northern leaders have rejected the notion of state-sponsored genocide. For example, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) maintains that the killings of Christians are real and serious, but the presidency and others deny systematic elimination.
Claim: The shift in narrative from “yes, genocide” to “no, not genocide but a broader insecurity problem” represents a watering-down of the truth for political convenience.
Counter: Bishop Kukah himself has expressed concern about the label of genocide, not because the killings aren’t real, but because the term may hamper efforts at dialogue and national healing.
Why this matters: The stakes for Nigeria
There are three urgent reasons to pay attention:
1. Security and accountability: Regardless of the label, the fact is that thousands of Nigerians – Christian and Muslim, in the middle belt, the North, and elsewhere — are being killed, displaced, or subjected to terror. Bishop Kukah warns that Nigeria is effectively “at war with itself.” Whether or not the word “genocide” applies, the killings demand urgent, credible state and civil society response.
2. International reputation and investment: If Nigeria were designated a “Country of Particular Concern” or similar label by the U.S. or UN, there could be sanctions, reduced investment, and diplomatic isolation. Bishop Kukah warns such a move could make things worse.
3. Justice and healing for victims: The narrative we choose affects how survivors and victims are treated. For example:
The widely publicised case of Deborah Samuel, the student executed for blasphemy in 2022, remains unresolved in terms of full justice.
The ongoing captivity of Leah Sharibu since 2018 remains a symbol of the unresolved plight of Christian girls kidnapped and held by terrorists.
Whether we call it genocide or systemic terror, failing to frame it appropriately risks forgetting these victims and letting the perpetrators go unpunished.
What we should focus on — practical demands
Here are five concrete actions and questions the Nigerian public, state actors, and international partners should emphasise:
Transparent data collection: We need reliable, disaggregated data on attacks, deaths and displacement by region, religion, ethnicity and perpetrator type. Without that we cannot assess whether the killings meet the threshold of “genocide” or other crimes against humanity.
State capacity and rule of law: Both Bishop Kukah and other analysts emphasise Nigeria’s weakened state capacity is at the root of the violence. Strengthening security agencies, legal enforcement and community-resilience is urgent.
Victim-centred justice: For the families of Deborah Samuel, Leah Sharibu, the hundreds in Benue, Plateau, Niger and Zamfara states — action must follow words. Investigations, prosecutions, reparations, rebuilding destroyed communities.
Dialogue without denial: We must stop pretending the violence isn’t happening. Denial does not help. At the same time, using hyper-charged labels without the evidence can inflame inter-faith tensions and hamper cooperation (a point Bishop Kukah stresses).
International support with respect: The global community should offer support — intelligence, capacity building, equipment, financing — but must respect Nigeria’s sovereignty, complexity, and the need for inclusive solutions rather than punishments.
Yes, Nigeria is facing a grim and escalating security crisis, where religious identity may heighten vulnerability, particularly for Christian minorities in some Northern and Middle Belt communities. There are credible reports of church attacks, clergy abductions, community destruction, and thousands displaced or murdered.
At the same time, the label “genocide” under international law carries very specific criteria — deliberate intent by a state to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part. The latest reporting suggests that while atrocities are happening, they may not meet the strict legal threshold of genocide.
So what does that mean? It means we must hold the government and security apparatus to account for what we do know — the widespread killings, the impunity, the ethnic and religious vulnerabilities — rather than get bogged down in semantics that distract from action. And for voices like Bishop Kukah and Reno Omokri: the focus should remain on protecting people, rebuilding communities, strengthening the rule of law and ensuring the victims are not forgotten.
If we fail to do this — if we allow denial, label-wars or political expedience to dominate — we risk letting Nigeria slide further into chaos, where communities are decimated, survivors are ignored, and in time the country earns the stigma of being a humanitarian tragedy rather than a nation capable of renewal.
0 Comments