The Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC), Nigeria, has criticised the Federal Government for failing to mention Palestine, Gaza or the two-state solution in Nigeria’s national statement at the 81st United Nations General Assembly (UNGA 81).
In a statement issued on September 25, 2026, MPAC Executive Chairman Disu Kamor argued that Nigeria’s position represented a significant departure from the country’s approach at the previous UN General Assembly. According to MPAC, Nigeria had previously spoken about the devastation in Gaza, civilian suffering and its support for a two-state solution, but none of those issues appeared in this year’s 24-paragraph national statement.
Nigeria’s statement, delivered by Vice President Kashim Shettima on behalf of President Bola Tinubu on September 24, focused on a range of international issues, including reform of the United Nations Security Council, climate finance, artificial intelligence, global debt, counter-terrorism and humanitarian concerns.
MPAC questioned why Palestine was absent from the statement, particularly given Nigeria’s previous diplomatic position.
The controversy has, however, opened a wider debate about the priorities of Nigerian advocacy groups and religious organisations at a time when communities across the country continue to face severe security challenges.
A critical question raised by some Nigerians is whether the same level of public mobilisation and international advocacy directed towards conflicts outside Nigeria is being demonstrated toward victims of terrorism, banditry and kidnapping within the country.
This criticism is particularly relevant in parts of the North-West, where communities in Sokoto, Zamfara and Katsina continue to experience killings, abductions, displacement and attacks on farmers and rural communities.
Recent reporting by Premium Times documented renewed attacks, kidnappings and displacement affecting communities in Sokoto and Katsina, despite local peace arrangements and ongoing military operations.
Available security reporting also illustrates the scale of the domestic challenge. A July 2026 security report recorded 197 fatalities associated with incidents in Zamfara, 143 in Katsina and 70 in Sokoto during that month, although such figures include deaths occurring during military operations and should therefore not be interpreted as a simple measure of civilian casualties alone.
UNICEF has similarly documented the humanitarian consequences of insecurity in Nigeria, reporting substantial fatalities and continuing protection risks for children in states including Zamfara, Katsina and Sokoto during 2025.
It is against this backdrop that the argument contained in the original criticism emerges: why should Nigerians not demand equally strong attention for African victims of violence, including those affected by conflicts in Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali and Nigeria itself?
The argument does not necessarily require Nigerians to choose between humanitarian concerns. Palestinians experiencing war and displacement deserve humanitarian attention, just as Nigerian citizens facing terrorism, banditry and kidnapping deserve protection and advocacy.
Indeed, the United Nations itself continued to place Palestine prominently on the international agenda at UNGA 81. UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned about the devastating situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and reiterated that the two-state solution should not be allowed to disappear.
The issue, therefore, is not whether suffering in Palestine matters. Rather, the debate is whether Nigeria’s foreign-policy advocacy and domestic political discourse should simultaneously give sufficient attention to the suffering of Nigerians and other Africans affected by violent conflict.
For critics of selective activism, the challenge is straightforward: compassion should not be determined by geography, ethnicity, religion or political alliances.
Nigeria has its own victims crying for justice, security and protection. Their suffering deserves international attention too.
The controversy surrounding Nigeria’s UNGA 81 statement may therefore become less about Palestine alone and more about a broader question of humanitarian consistency: can Nigerians demand justice for victims everywhere while also demanding urgent justice and protection for victims at home?
0 Comments