Nigeria is on the brink of an unprecedented moment of international attention—one that is neither celebratory nor comfortable. As the United States Congress prepares to reopen a high-stakes debate on global religious freedom, Africa’s most populous nation has emerged as a focal point of concern, scrutiny, and sharp disagreement. What is unfolding in Washington is not merely another diplomatic conversation; it is a defining moment that could reshape Nigeria’s global image, its security partnerships, and its internal narrative about violence, faith, and governance.
At the centre of this renewed scrutiny is a joint hearing of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, scheduled for Wednesday, under the theme “Defending Religious Freedom Around the World.” Convened by the House Subcommittee on Africa and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, the hearing seeks to evaluate what U.S. lawmakers describe as escalating threats to religious freedom worldwide—and, critically, the failure of existing international mechanisms to stem these dangers.
Nigeria looms large in this assessment, and not in a flattering way.
A grim portrait submitted to Congress
Written testimonies already submitted ahead of the hearing paint a deeply troubling picture. They describe a pattern of recurring mass killings, widespread displacement of civilians, and persistent insecurity that, according to expert witnesses, can no longer be dismissed as random or purely criminal violence. Instead, they argue, the evidence increasingly points to a deeper and more dangerous fault line: a violent crisis in which religious identity is becoming both a target and a weapon.
The implication is stark. What Nigeria is experiencing, the witnesses suggest, may be the early stages of a broader religious conflict with implications far beyond its borders.
“The deadliest place to be a Christian”
Among the most prominent voices testifying is Sam Brownback, former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. In his written submission to Congress, Brownback adopts an unusually blunt and urgent tone, framing Nigeria as a central battlefield in what he describes as a widening campaign by radical militant Islamist movements.
According to Brownback, Nigeria—alongside Syria—has become a key focus area for extremist groups seeking religious dominance. These are spaces, he argues, where state fragility, porous security structures, economic desperation, and ideological extremism intersect with devastating human consequences.
In perhaps the most striking line of his testimony, Brownback labels Nigeria “the deadliest place on the planet to be a Christian.” He warns that the consistent patterns of attacks on communities, religious leaders, and places of worship resemble classic early-warning indicators of a much wider religious war, not merely a domestic security crisis driven by banditry or insurgency.
In his assessment, Nigeria is no longer a peripheral concern on the global stage. It sits at what he calls the epicentre of a potential continental catastrophe—one that, if left unaddressed, could destabilise large parts of West and Central Africa.
Faith, power, and geopolitics
Brownback goes further, reframing religious freedom as not only a moral imperative but a strategic asset. Faith communities under attack, he argues, are often among the most resilient and natural allies in the global struggle against violent extremism and authoritarian rule. To abandon them is not just a moral failure, but a strategic error that cedes ground to radical ideologies.
He also raises alarms about the growing influence of foreign powers within Nigeria’s security and political ecosystem. According to Brownback, involvement—whether overt or subtle—from countries such as China, Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia could complicate Nigeria’s already fragile situation. If not carefully managed, he warns, external support and competing interests may fuel instability rather than resolve it.
The cost of inaction, Brownback suggests, could be catastrophic. Drawing parallels with Iraq’s darkest years, he warns that Nigeria risks descending into mass atrocities if decisive and coordinated international action is delayed.
A global crisis, not a Nigerian exception
Another key witness, Dr. Stephen Schneck, former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, broadens the conversation beyond Nigeria alone. In testimony delivered in a private capacity, Schneck argues that freedom of religion or belief is facing a historic global crisis.
According to him, rising authoritarianism, the resurgence of religious nationalism, and the collapse or weakening of state institutions have created fertile ground for persecution worldwide. Nigeria, alongside countries such as Syria and Sudan, is cited as a prime example of how weak governance allows armed groups, insurgents, and criminal networks to exploit religious identity for power, control, and legitimacy.
In these environments, Schneck explains, religion becomes both a rallying cry and a fault line—used to mobilise violence, justify atrocities, and fracture already fragile societies. The outcome is tragically consistent: mass killings, forced displacement, humanitarian crises, and long-term instability that spills across borders.
A pointed rebuke of Washington
Notably, Schneck does not reserve his criticism for foreign governments alone. Some of his sharpest words are directed at Washington itself. He argues that the United States has failed to fully live up to both the spirit and the letter of its International Religious Freedom Act.
According to Schneck, U.S. policy has leaned too heavily on symbolic gestures, rhetoric, and sporadic military actions, rather than sustained, strategic, and principled engagement. He points to repeated delays in publishing State Department religious freedom reports and the lack of updated designations of Countries of Particular Concern (CPCs) as signs of institutional drift.
Nigeria, he notes, now stands as the only country currently carrying that designation—an anomaly he describes as deeply troubling, especially at a time when repression is intensifying in other parts of the world, including China and Iran.
Crucially, Schneck also warns against narrowing the issue to Christian persecution alone. Religious freedom, he insists, is universal. Selective advocacy may generate political traction, but it ultimately undermines credibility and effectiveness, leaving other vulnerable communities exposed.
Abuja’s firm rejection
Nigeria’s Federal Government has consistently pushed back against claims of systemic religious persecution. Officials in Abuja maintain that the country’s security crisis affects citizens across religious, ethnic, and regional lines. From their perspective, what Nigeria faces is a complex web of challenges driven by terrorism, armed banditry, criminal networks, and economic pressures—not a religious war.
Successive administrations have argued that framing the violence primarily in religious terms oversimplifies the problem and risks inflaming tensions further.
Yet Washington’s actions suggest lingering scepticism.
Escalating U.S. involvement
Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump redesignated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern, a move accompanied by unusually blunt rhetoric. Public warnings included references to potential military action if conditions continued to deteriorate.
On Christmas Day, U.S. forces reportedly carried out strikes on terrorist hideouts in Sokoto, a development that heightened tensions and fuelled speculation about deeper American involvement in Nigeria’s security affairs.
Diplomatic engagement has since intensified. In November 2025, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth hosted Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, at the Pentagon for high-level discussions focused on counterterrorism cooperation and regional stability. Ribadu later confirmed that Nigeria hosted a U.S. congressional delegation in Abuja, with talks centred on strengthening bilateral security ties.
More recently, both countries convened a plenary session of the Nigeria–U.S. Joint Working Group, aimed specifically at addressing Nigeria’s controversial CPC designation and its broader implications for the bilateral relationship.
A defining moment for Nigeria
As U.S. lawmakers gather in Washington, the testimonies before them frame Nigeria not as a distant or abstract tragedy, but as a critical test case. It is a test of global resolve, of moral consistency, and of whether early warnings will once again be ignored until violence becomes irreversible.
For Nigeria, the implications are profound. The hearing signals that the international community is no longer content to observe quietly from the sidelines. Scrutiny is intensifying. Judgments are forming. And the narratives emerging in global power centres may soon shape policies with real consequences on the ground.
Whether Nigeria can successfully reframe the conversation—or whether it will find itself increasingly defined by it—remains one of the most consequential questions of the moment.
0 Comments