Greece (Brussels Morning) Nigeria has in recent years projected itself as a rising economic and political power—a country with vast natural resources, an expanding middle class, and the ambition to play a leading role not only in West Africa, but also on the global stage. Yet, a troubling narrative has gained traction both online and in international media: that Christians in Nigeria are under systematic assault, facing the specter of genocide.
From abductions and targeted killings of priests to massacres of villagers in the country’s Middle Belt and North, headlines increasingly echo the darkest moments of 20th-century Europe and the Balkans—when unchecked hate speech, political fragmentation, and militia violence laid the groundwork for ethnic cleansing and mass displacement. This is not merely a matter of human rights; it is about whether Nigeria’s own institutions are strong enough to ensure stability, prevent sectarianism from becoming state-sanctioned chaos, and preserve its reputation as an ascending regional power.
The Anatomy of a Dangerous Narrative
Recent reports tell conflicting stories. Catholic and evangelical networks in the West have sounded alarms of systematic persecution, pointing to the killings of priests and the destruction of villages as evidence of an organized plan to erase Christian communities. Genocide Watch, for example, recently declared that Fulani militias had massacred over 200 Christians in a single incident, framing the violence as part of a wider campaign.
At the same time, international outlets such as Al Jazeera have pushed back strongly against the use of the word “genocide,” arguing that such claims are politically motivated, inflamed by diaspora networks and Western commentators who frame Nigeria’s security crisis through a religious lens, often ignoring complex local realities such as land disputes, climate migration, and the breakdown of traditional rural governance.
This divergence matters. Once the word “genocide” enters public debate, it rarely leaves. It hardens into a geopolitical lens, shaping diplomatic pressure, foreign aid conditions, and even the investment climate. For Nigeria—a country striving to be seen as modern, forward-looking, and stable—the very fact that this conversation has found oxygen at all represents an institutional failure.
Where Are the Institutions?
The Nigerian government has condemned violence in general terms. But broad condemnations are no longer enough. The world expects a country of Nigeria’s size and ambition to demonstrate capacity. Where are the independent commissions of inquiry? Where are the swift prosecutions of perpetrators? Where are the policy frameworks that prevent the weaponization of ethnic and religious difference for political gain?
Nigeria has democratic institutions on paper. It holds regular elections, boasts a growing civil society, and its economy is one of Africa’s most diversified. Yet these strengths are overshadowed by persistent doubts about the state’s capacity to provide security across its vast territory.
The persistence of violence in the Middle Belt and northern regions is not new, but what is striking is the absence of a coordinated, credible national response. In regions where the military and police are stretched thin, private militias and community defense groups fill the vacuum. Religious leaders issue their own security warnings. Local politicians, instead of tamping down tension, often benefit from exploiting sectarian fears to consolidate power.
If Nigeria’s central institutions are functioning, why are they not seen to be acting decisively against groups that target civilians? Why do international observers, and even mainstream media, feel compelled to speculate about genocide, rather than being reassured by a transparent state-led process of accountability?
This perception gap is itself a crisis. Strong states do not allow the question of genocide to even be asked within their borders, because institutions act swiftly and publicly to restore confidence in rule of law. For Nigeria, a nation seeking to attract global capital and project itself as a reliable political partner, allowing such doubts to fester is costly.
Economic Growth in the Shadow of Fear
Nigeria’s economy is, by some measures, a remarkable success story. With a population exceeding 230 million, it represents one of the largest consumer markets in Africa. Its fintech sector has drawn billions in foreign investment, oil and gas remain pillars of its export economy, and Lagos is increasingly seen as a continental hub of innovation.
Yet the global economy is as much about perception as it is about fundamentals. When investors hear the word “genocide” in the same sentence as “Nigeria,” the calculus changes. Political risk premiums rise, long-term commitments wobble, and the country’s ability to present itself as a safe and modern destination for capital weakens.
It is not simply that violence undermines growth—many economies have thrived despite pockets of insecurity. The real danger lies in Nigeria’s apparent unwillingness, or inability, to confront the narrative itself. When a state does not actively counter the story that it tolerates systematic persecution of a religious majority—Christians represent roughly half of the Nigerian population—it creates room for the rumour to metastasize into accepted truth.
Political Power at Stake
Nigeria’s leaders have long aspired to position the country as a continental stabilizer, a voice for Africa in multilateral forums, and a counterweight to external powers seeking influence in the region. To play that role, credibility matters. It is one thing for Western NGOs to report on human rights abuses in rural Nigeria; it is another when Western policymakers begin to weigh sanctions or humanitarian interventions on the basis of alleged genocide.
Nigeria risks being defined not by its innovation economy or its regional leadership, but by the perception that its government cannot—or will not—protect its own people from sectarian violence. This is a geopolitical own goal. Countries that allow their domestic unrest to be cast in terms of genocide rarely emerge as respected powers on the world stage. Instead, they become case studies in fragility.
Silence, or half-measures, invite the world to fill in the blanks. They invite diaspora groups, NGOs, and international media to craft narratives that the state itself refuses to confront. And once those narratives gain traction, they become harder to reverse.
Dear reader,
Opinions expressed in the op-ed section are solely those of the individual author and do not represent the official stance of our newspaper. We believe in providing a platform for a wide range of voices and perspectives, even those that may challenge or differ from our own. We remain committed to providing our readers with high-quality, fair, and balanced journalism. Thank you for your continued support.
