Connect with us

News

How propaganda and exaggerated genocide narratives triggered punitive international actions against Nigeria

Published

on

How propaganda and exaggerated genocide narratives triggered punitive international actions against Nigeria

By: Zagazola Makama

Recent United States visa restrictions and mass deportation measures affecting Nigerian nationals have reopened debate on how sustained propaganda, misinformation and alarmist narratives about insecurity in Nigeria shaped international perceptions and policy responses against the country.

While Nigeria continues to face real security challenges including terrorism by ISWAP, Boko Haram, AlQaeda, banditry, farmer–herder clashes and transnational jihadist infiltration, the framing of these conflicts as an organised, state-backed “Christian genocide” has increasingly been questioned by Nigerians.

Yet, for several years, a powerful campaign driven largely by Nigerian activists, politicians and diaspora-based pressure groups portrayed Nigeria as the world’s epicentre of religious extermination, with claims that were grossly exaggerated, unverifiable or outright false.

The agitations grew domestic grievance to international propaganda. Between 2021 and 2024, a wave of advocacy emerged accusing the Nigerian state of deliberately sponsoring or protecting jihadists allegedly engaged in the daily slaughter of Christians. Some campaigners claimed that 1,500 Christians were being killed every day, a figure that would translate to more than 540,000 deaths annually, a number exceeding fatalities recorded in most active war zones globally.

One widely circulated narrative claimed that between 2010 and October 2025, 185,000 people were killed on account of their faith, including 125,000 Christians and 60,000 Muslims, allegedly based on reports from Intersociety, one of the NGO created to push the false claims.” The same narrative alleged that 19,100 churches had been burned and 1,100 Christian communities completely seized and occupied by jihadists supposedly backed or shielded by the Nigerian government.

However, independent verification of these figures consistently failed. No global conflict-monitoring organization, including ACLED, UN agencies, or major international human rights bodies as well as official bodies like Police, DSS, and the NHRC, corroborated such numbers. Nigeria’s total population stands at approximately 240 million, making such casualty claims statistically implausible without triggering global humanitarian emergency responses on the scale of Gaza, Syria or Ukraine.

Zagazola Makama report that while religiously motivated attacks occur, Nigeria’s violence landscape is far more complex, driven by criminal banditry, resource conflict, insurgency, arms proliferation, climate stress and weak border control, affecting Muslims, Christians, Pagan, traditionalist and adherents of other faiths alike.

Despite the lack of empirical grounding, these activities keep weaponizing faith to internationalise pressure. The genocide narrative gained traction in U.S. political circles, evangelical advocacy groups and sections of Western media. Some Nigerian politicians amplified these claims at international forums, urging sanctions, arms embargoes and even military intervention against their own country.

The expectation among agitators was that Trump’s administration would deploy American forces or impose targeted sanctions against Nigerian officials and groups like Miyetti Allah, Boko Haram, Bandit and those that once push for Shariah laws. Instead, the policy response took a different and far more consequential direction. Rather than physical military intervention, Washington opted for strategic intervention with the armed forces of Nigeria through technical support while in their country they opted for tougher penalties like border control, immigration enforcement and visa restrictions, citing insecurity, terrorist activity, document integrity issues and vetting challenges.

Nigeria was subsequently placed under partial U.S. travel restrictions, with the U.S. government explicitly referencing the activities of Boko Haram and ISWAP, and difficulties in screening travellers from affected regions.

The unintended security backlash
Ironically, following persistent framing of Nigeria’s violence as a religious war produced outcomes opposite to what campaigners claimed to seek. Rather than protecting Christians, the rhetoric emboldened extremist groups to carry even more deadlier attacks.

Terrorist organisations, including ISWAP, JAS and al-Qaeda-linked JNIM elements now infiltrating North-Central Nigeria, capitalised on global narratives portraying Nigeria as a battlefield of faith. By attacking churches, clergy and Christian communities, these groups sought to validate the propaganda, provoke sectarian retaliation and trigger a broader religious conflict. This strategy mirrors jihadist doctrine across the Sahel: manufacture sectarian violence, polarise society, delegitimise the state and attract recruits.

Security intelligence from Kwara and Niger States, for instance, shows JNIM’s Katiba Macina exploiting communal tensions along the Benin–Nigeria corridor, recruiting Fulani youths while framing attacks as resistance against “tyranny” language deliberately aimed at feeding international narratives of persecution.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has since justified its tougher posture using data-driven assessments: visa overstay rates, terrorism risks, weak civil documentation systems and law-enforcement information gaps.
For Nigeria, these translated into: Partial visa suspensions for B, F, M and J categories, increased scrutiny of Nigerian travellers, inclusion in broader immigration enforcement actions, Indirect reputational damage affecting trade, education and diplomacy

Meanwhile, The Department Homeland Security announced record deportations and self-removals, over 2.5 million exits since January 2025, a development that disproportionately affects nationals of countries portrayed as high-risk, Nigeria included. Crucially, those most affected are ordinary Nigerians students, professionals, families and entrepreneurs, not terrorists, bandit leaders or militia commanders.

The Fulani bandit in the forest has no interest in a U.S. visa. It is the Nigerian student, pastor, doctor and trader who bears the cost.

Notably, as sanctions and restrictions took effect, the loud genocide rhetoric largely faded from public discourse. The activists who once dominated international media cycles have grown quieter, perhaps confronted by the reality that the consequences fell on Nigeria as a whole, not on imagined perpetrators. This pattern point to a broader lesson in strategic communication: when a nation’s internal crises are exaggerated into existential falsehoods, external actors respond not with rescue but with containment.

A cautionary lesson for national discourse is that; Nigeria’s security challenges are real and demand sustained reform, diplomatic support, and international cooperation. But weaponising religion, spreading unverifiable casualty figures and lobbying for foreign punitive action against one’s own country undermines national security rather than strengthening it. More dangerously, it feeds extremist propaganda, deepens communal mistrust and invites external decisions based on distorted perceptions.

When internal challenges are projected internationally without context or factual balance, foreign governments respond not with solidarity but with restrictions, sanctions and containment. In this environment, propaganda even when framed as advocacy, erodes diplomatic goodwill and inflicts long-term harm on citizens whose lives and opportunities are shaped by external policy decisions.

False alarms and absolutist narratives fracture social trust, embolden extremists and inflame the very fault lines terrorists seek to exploit. Ultimately, propaganda however emotionally persuasive does not protect communities; it weakens national resilience and leaves society more vulnerable to the forces it hopes to defeat.

Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad region

How propaganda and exaggerated genocide narratives triggered punitive international actions against Nigeria

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

News

Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara

Published

on

Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara

By: Zagazola Makama

The Zamfara State Police Command says it has successfully foiled a planned attack after its Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit discovered and safely destroyed an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) in Tsafe Local Government Area of the state.

The Command said the operation was carried out on Friday at about 4:15 p.m. along the Kunchin Kalgo axis following credible intelligence received through community engagement efforts.

According to a statement issued by the Command, operatives of the Violence Crime Response Unit (VCRU), in collaboration with the EOD team, swiftly mobilised to the area after receiving information about a suspected explosive device planted by bandits.

Preliminary findings indicated that the device was strategically planted along the road with the intent of causing mass casualties among commuters and other road users.

The statement added that the timely response of the operatives led to the safe detection, evacuation and controlled destruction of the explosive device before it could cause any harm.

The Command commended the vigilance and cooperation of local residents, describing community support as critical to ongoing security operations in the state.

It further assured residents that efforts were ongoing to identify, arrest and prosecute those responsible for planting the device.

The police also disclosed that patrols had been intensified across vulnerable areas to prevent similar incidents and ensure the safety of road users.

The Commissioner of Police, A.M. Bello, reiterated the Command’s commitment to sustained operations against banditry and other violent crimes in Zamfara State.

Police Foil IED Attack, Destroy Explosive Device in Zamfara

Continue Reading

News

Russia’s Role in the Widening Insecurity in Africa

Published

on

Russia’s Role in the Widening Insecurity in Africa

By Ipole Amajama

The African continent is once again at the centre of a geopolitical storm. From the Sahel to Nigeria, insecurity is spreading at an alarming speed, threatening fragile states and destabilising entire regions. While local dynamics and systemic weaknesses play a role, Russia’s involvement raises troubling questions about its motives and the consequences for Africa and beyond.

Nigeria faces a growing terrorist threat that is no longer confined to its borders. The collapse of governance in several states of the Alliance of Sahelian Juntas (AES) has created fertile ground for extremist groups. These failed states have become incubators of insecurity, exporting violence into neighbouring countries. The challenge is no longer whether to support or oppose the junta, but how to deal with their failures and the regional consequences of their isolation.

Russia’s actions in Africa reveal a clear pattern: its primary aim is not to stabilise the continent but to create a secondary frontline against the West. By fostering instability in Africa, Moscow seeks to divert European attention and resources away from Ukraine. The Kremlin’s involvement is less about partnership and more about exploiting chaos for strategic advantage.

This raises a critical question: is Russia simply incapable of offering meaningful support, or is it deliberately spreading insecurity? The evidence suggests that Moscow benefits from turmoil in Africa, whether by design or by opportunism.

Whatever happens in Africa has little direct impact on Russia. The continent is geographically distant, and Russia’s economic ties with African nations are minimal. In fact, Africa’s collapse could even benefit Moscow. African oil, gas, and mineral exports compete with Russia’s own. If insecurity disrupts African production, global prices rise—strengthening Russia’s export revenues.

Europe, however, bears the brunt of Africa’s instability. Migratory pressure from conflict zones is already reshaping European politics. Far-right parties, often sympathetic to Russia, are gaining ground in countries like France and the UK. By exacerbating insecurity in Africa, Moscow indirectly fuels migration flows that influence European voters. This strategy weakens European unity and undermines support for Ukraine.

From a Russian perspective, encouraging instability in Africa is a shrewd way to manipulate European politics. The more Africans flee insecurity and attempt to reach Europe, the greater the strain on European societies. This pressure amplifies populist narratives, strengthens far-right movements, and erodes mainstream political consensus. Since many far-right parties are pro-Russia, the Kremlin gains strategic leverage by destabilising Africa.

Russia’s record in the Sahel is damning. It has done nothing to fight terrorism. Instead, it has encouraged juntas to isolate themselves from the international community, sever ties with African neighbours, and expel Western intelligence and military support. In exchange, the Sahel states received nothing of substance. Russian involvement has failed to improve security, governance, or economic conditions. On the contrary, the situation has worsened.

It is difficult to determine whether Russia is acting with malicious intent or simply behaving irresponsibly. Either way, the outcome is the same: worsening insecurity. Moscow’s promises of support have proven empty. Its presence has deepened instability, leaving African populations more vulnerable than before.

The hypothesis of a cynical will to facilitate insecurity cannot be dismissed. Russia appears to be the only clear winner of Africa’s suffering. By exploiting chaos, Moscow strengthens its geopolitical position, increases its export revenues, and undermines European resolve.

The lesson is stark: Africa must never again rely on a self-proclaimed outside “saviour.” Russia’s involvement has shown that external powers may prioritise their own interests over African stability. The continent must instead build resilience through self-reliance and multilateral cooperation.

African nations should pursue balanced partnerships that preserve freedom of action. By engaging with multiple partners—regional organisations, international institutions, and diverse allies—Africa can avoid dependency and secure more effective support. Only through collective action can African states confront terrorism, strengthen governance, and protect their sovereignty.

Russia’s role in Africa is not about solidarity or development. It is about exploiting insecurity to advance its global strategy. By destabilising Africa, Moscow weakens Europe, strengthens far-right allies, and boosts its own economic position. Whether through negligence or deliberate manipulation, Russia has worsened Africa’s plight.

The challenge for Africa is to recognise this reality and chart a new path. The continent must rely on itself, build multilateral frameworks, and reject the false promises of external saviours. Only then can Africa safeguard its future and prevent its suffering from being weaponised to serve foreign ambitions.

Amajama, a social commentator, writes from Abuja and can be reached via amajamaip@gmail.com

Russia’s Role in the Widening Insecurity in Africa

Continue Reading

News

Buni approved the appointment of Yerima as the new emir of Ngazargamu.

Published

on

Buni approved the appointment of Yerima as the new emir of Ngazargamu.

By: Yahaya Wakili

Governor Mai Mala Buni CON, COMN of Yobe state has approved the appointment of Alhaji Yerima Ibn Mahmud as the new Emir of Ngazargamu.

This is contained in a statement signed and issued today, 12th June, 2026, by the acting secretary to the state government, Dr. Mohammed Goje, in Damaturu.

The appointment of the new emir of Ngazargamu followed the demise of the late emir, Alhaji Tijjani Ahmed Ibn-Saleh Geidam, who passed away recently in Cairo, Egypt, after a protracted illness.

Until his appointment, the new Mai Ngazargamu was the Turakin Ngazargamu, an office he held for 16 years. He was also a member of the State House of Assembly.

The new emir of Ngazargamu, Alhaji Yerima Ibn Mahmud, has at different times served as a member of the State Executive Council and the state commissioner for livestock development before the new appointment.

Governor Mai Mala Buni, while congratulating the new emir and the Ngazargamu emirate, urged the new emir to use his wealth of experience to unite the people, promote peace and peaceful coexistence, and foster economic growth of the emirate, Yobe State, and Nigeria as a whole.

Similarly, Governor Buni called on the people to support the new emir to execute the functions of his office diligently, effectively, and efficiently for the benefit of the people, peace, unity, and prosperity of the emirate.

Buni approved the appointment of Yerima as the new emir of Ngazargamu.

Continue Reading

Trending

Verified by MonsterInsights