To end insecurity, kill religion in Nigerian politics

By: Dr. James Bwala

Last week I was at the Garki area, specifically at the Kiss FM 99.9, to supervise one of my students on SIWES at the radio station. I arrived while a call-in program was on air with discussions and contributions coming in as I took a seat in the studio. The discussion was centered around politics and religion, with the visits of some religious leaders to the presidency and endorsement of the Tinubu and Kashim Shettima’s administration for the 2027 general elections in the country. This program got hot at some point, and I smiled as I followed. In the end, we exchanged pleasantry and did the introduction because the anchor of that program, Mr. Felix, happened to be my student’s organization supervisor. While discussing the program, I told him that every political leader is a religious leader, and I explained. He concurred and also suggested I come up someday for his program live, which I will someday.

While I left the station, I also arrived at Gwani Street to see one of my students on an industrial assignment. While I was waiting in that office, I listened to conversations amongst staff of that organization still hitting on politics and religion. This time they were looking at the insecurity situations in Nigeria and the government and its agencies’ inability to deal with the situation and bring it to an end. I smiled and nodded as if agreeing with one of the staff’s views when he pointed at the failure of the Tinubu administration and the lack of commitment on the part of the Nigerian military to end the terror conflicts of Boko Haram in the Northeast, banditry in the Northwest, and kidnapping and other crimes across other parts of the country.

He then turns to me and seeks my opinion after learning I was a lecturer with one of the universities. He asked a specific question and needed a straight answer as to how I think the insecurity in the country can come to an end. I simply said, “To end insecurity, kill religion in Nigerian politics.” This statement hits them like a bomb. One asked if I am serious. I smile, look at him straight in the eyes, and ask what he thinks. I told them I am seeing the prophecy of Malam Aminu Kano in 1956 when he cautions about the day politicians and religious leaders will come to the table in agreement and the outcome he foresaw of the common man. I told them what I earlier told the anchorman at Kiss Radio—that every political leader is a religious leader. And every word coming from such a leader makes or destroys.

The conversation went on, and I told them that the pervasive issue of insecurity in Nigeria has become a constant source of national anxiety, prompting widespread calls for decisive action from the government and military.

My point is that, while the populace is quick to attribute the persistent state of insecurity to the perceived failures of these institutions, a deeper examination reveals a more complex web of underlying factors that hinder effective resolution. Among these, the pervasive influence of religion, often exploited or manipulated, stands out as a potent catalyst and impediment to lasting peace in Nigeria.

My observation is that it is a common refrain in Nigerian discourse to point fingers at the government and the military for the nation’s security woes. From banditry in the North to farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt and secessionist agitations in the South, the blame is often laid at the feet of ineffective governance and a poorly equipped or corrupt security apparatus. While these institutions undoubtedly bear responsibility for maintaining law and order, this singular focus often overshadows the intricate socio-religious dynamics that fuel and sustain these conflicts. The narrative of government failure, while partly true, serves as a convenient shield, deflecting attention from the deeply entrenched communal grievances and the ways in which religious identity is weaponized.

I see religion in Nigeria as not merely a private belief system; it is a powerful social and political force that permeates nearly every aspect of life. Unfortunately, this influence is often exploited to sow division and incite violence. Extremist interpretations of religious doctrines, propagated by unscrupulous individuals or groups, have fostered an us-versus-them mentality, dehumanizing those of differing faiths and justifying aggression.

The proliferation of religious militias and other influences of religion often exacerbates the cycle of violence, blurring the lines between self-defense and offensive action. For example, the farmer-herder crisis is frequently framed in religious terms, pitting predominantly Christian farmers against Muslim herders, thereby obscuring the underlying issues of land scarcity, resource competition, and historical grievances. This religious framing simplifies complex socio-economic problems into an intractable faith-based conflict, making genuine reconciliation immensely difficult.

In fact, the influence of religious leaders in Nigeria is immense, and their pronouncements carry significant weight within their communities.

While many religious leaders advocate for peace and tolerance, a segment actively or passively contributes to insecurity. This can manifest through the dissemination of inflammatory rhetoric, the justification of violence in the name of faith, or the refusal to condemn acts of brutality committed by adherents of their religion. In some cases, religious institutions themselves become centers of power and influence that are unwilling to cede ground or engage in interfaith dialogue, further entrenching divisions.

The inability of many religious communities to engage in critical self-reflection regarding their role in perpetuating conflict is a major impediment to peace. When religious doctrines are interpreted in ways that promote exclusivity and intolerance, the seeds of insecurity are sown.

It is crucial to acknowledge that religion is not the sole driver of insecurity in Nigeria. Poverty, unemployment, corruption, ethnic tensions, and the proliferation of small arms all play significant roles.

However, religion often acts as an accelerant, transforming these underlying vulnerabilities into active conflicts. For example, economic hardship can be more easily exploited by religious demagogues who promise divine retribution against perceived enemies or offer spiritual solace that justifies violent action. Similarly, ethnic rivalries are often overlaid with religious differences, creating a potent and combustible mix. Therefore, any strategy aimed at ending insecurity must acknowledge and actively dismantle the ways in which religion is manipulated to exacerbate these other societal ills.

The brief discussion turns to a lecture series. Given my take on this, I concluded that while the Nigerian government and military remain central to any security strategy, their efforts will continue to fall short if the deeply ingrained religious dimensions of insecurity are not addressed. The tendency to solely blame external authorities obscures the internal societal dynamics that fuel conflict. Until Nigerians, particularly religious leaders and communities, engage in a profound and honest reckoning with how religious narratives and identities are being used to perpetuate violence, lasting peace will remain an elusive dream.

Acknowledging and actively dismantling the manipulative use of religion, fostering genuine interfaith dialogue, and promoting critical engagement with religious texts are vital steps toward breaking the cycle of insecurity that has plagued Nigeria for too long. Only by confronting these “underlying difficulties” can Nigeria hope to achieve lasting stability.

We can learn from the ten most peaceful countries in the world: Iceland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Slovenia, Ireland, Austria, Portugal, Singapore, Finland and Japan. In these countries, there is a great divide between politics, government and religion. Kill religion in government and in politics and Nigeria will end insecurity.

• James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja
• To end insecurity, kill religion in Nigerian politics

Dafinone Consults Ughelli North Stakeholders as Egbo Vows APC Victory in 2027

……As Dafinone consults stakeholders, urges unity

The Executive Chairman of Ughelli North Local Government Council, Olorogun Jaro Movudu Egbo, KSC, has declared that the All Progressives Congress (APC) is poised for a decisive victory in Ughelli North in the 2027 general elections.

Egbo made the declaration on Friday when the Senator representing Delta Central Senatorial District, Senator Ede Dafinone, visited the council for a stakeholder consultation at the Executive Council Chamber of the Ughelli North Local Government Secretariat.

Speaking to party leaders, elders and other stakeholders, Egbo said the APC was gaining momentum across the local government, assuring Dafinone of a robust grassroots mobilisation strategy and a united political structure ahead of the polls.

He pledged that Ughelli North would deliver a resounding victory for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Governor Sheriff Oborevwori and other APC candidates, stressing that the council remained firmly aligned with the party’s programmes and policies.

The council chairman also called for sustained stakeholder engagement, political stability and internal cohesion, describing them as essential to securing electoral success.

The APC Chairman in Delta Central Senatorial District, Chief Omeni Akpeki, in his remarks, urged party executives, ward leaders and stakeholders to close ranks and resolve grievances amicably.

Akpeki stressed that unity, discipline and mutual respect were critical to building a formidable structure capable of delivering victory for the party in 2027.

Dafinone, who explained the purpose of the consultation, reaffirmed his commitment to inclusive and responsive representation.

He said regular engagement with party leaders, elders, traditional institutions, community stakeholders and constituents was necessary to understand their concerns and aspirations and translate them into meaningful legislative interventions.

The meeting ended with a renewed commitment by APC leaders and stakeholders in Ughelli North to strengthen party unity, intensify grassroots mobilisation and work collectively towards victory in the 2027 elections.

Dafinone Consults Ughelli North Stakeholders as Egbo Vows APC Victory in 2027

The Perils of Preconceived Notions: General Musa, Seun Okinbaloye, and Channels Interview 

By: Dr. James Bwala 

Recently, a significant conversation has sparked around an interview that the Minister of Defense, General Christopher Musa (retired), had with Channels Television anchor Seun Okinbaloye. This exchange has become a focal point for criticism, as many commentators, including media figures and some religious scholars, interpret his responses in ways that appear to deviate from their true context and intent. Growing up in Kaduna and having a profound understanding of the political scene, I find this widespread misrepresentation quite troubling. A closer look at the interview shows that the criticisms directed at the former Defense Chief often arise from a selective reading and a lack of appreciation for the nuanced layers of his statements. 

At the heart of the controversy is General Musa’s reaction to a specific question from the Channels Television anchor. While the exact wording and context of the question are vital, it’s clear from the ensuing commentary that many observers zeroed in on a particular part of his response, pulling it out of the broader conversation. The narrative that has taken hold suggests a dismissive or inappropriate reaction from the minister. However, if we take the time to thoroughly review the interview, especially the context leading up to the question and General Musa’s subsequent elaborations, we see a different story. It’s crucial to recognize the immense pressure and the complex nature of the role held by the Minister of Defense. This position requires constant vigilance and a careful balance in public statements, particularly when dealing with sensitive security matters. The argument here is that General Musa’s response, when viewed in its entirety, was a pragmatic effort to navigate these complexities rather than a sign of insensitivity.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

The political landscape in Nigeria, especially in places like Kaduna where I grew up, is strong, and emotions and historical grievances often characterize the political landscape in Nigeria, In such a charged atmosphere, public figures, particularly those in high-ranking roles like the Minister of Defense, need to be very careful with their words. Everything they say is closely examined, often exaggerated, and sometimes twisted to fit certain narratives. Those who quickly criticized General Musa’s comments might have missed the point that his seemingly blunt response could have been a calculated move, aimed at preventing further escalation of sensitive issues or maintaining a necessary level of official discretion. 

For example, when it comes to national security, sharing too much information or getting into lengthy explanations can actually be risky. So, a brief answer, even if it comes off as abrupt, might just be a strategic choice to protect national interests. One major reason for the misunderstanding is the common habit of consuming information in bite-sized pieces, especially in today’s social media-driven world. Short clips and quick quotes can easily be taken out of context and spread around, creating echo chambers that don’t really capture the full picture. Many of the commentators who have criticized General Musa haven’t taken the time to watch the entire interview or consider his extensive background and responsibilities as minister. His military career, which has led him to high-ranking positions, suggests he has a solid grasp of strategic communication and understands the significance of official statements. It’s hard to believe that a seasoned military leader would make a statement that lacks substance or context.

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

It’s worth noting that many religious scholars who express their disapproval often do so through a particular theological perspective. While their insights can enrich public discussions, it’s crucial to ensure that their interpretations are rooted in a well-rounded grasp of the issues, including the secular duties of government officials. The Minister of Defense operates within a national security and governance framework that demands a practical and often nuanced approach, which might not always align with every religious or moral viewpoint. 

Therefore, the interaction with the Channels Television anchor should be examined not just for its immediate emotional resonance but also for its strategic implications and the deeper reasoning behind it, even if that reasoning isn’t clearly stated. The goal here isn’t to dismiss all criticism but to encourage a more thoughtful and less reactive way of assessing public statements from those in power. Nigeria’s political landscape is ever-changing and often filled with challenges. Leaders are tasked with making decisions and communicating in ways that tackle urgent issues while also keeping an eye on long-term stability. When we look at General Musa’s response through this lens, it appears to be an effort to navigate a complicated situation with the limited resources available in a public interview. The tendency for some observers to jump to conclusions can undermine effective leadership and foster unnecessary divisions based on partial understandings.

The political scene in Nigeria is often marked by passionate debates, strong loyalties, and a curious tendency to elevate certain leaders to almost god-like status, while others face relentless criticism. This dynamic is particularly evident in the ongoing discussions about public figures like Malam Nasir El Rufai and General Musa. What stands out is a troubling trend: the uneven application of criticism, where some individuals seem to be immune from accountability thanks to their loyal supporters, while others are quickly condemned for even mildly controversial statements. Recently, it became clear that some people show an almost fanatical devotion to figures like El Rufai, to the extent that they refuse to acknowledge any faults. 

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

This kind of blind loyalty poses a serious barrier to constructive political dialogue. When political allies are treated like saints, it creates an environment where differing opinions are not just unwelcome but actively silenced. Once a politician is deemed untouchable, any critique—no matter how valid—is brushed off as an attack from opponents. This was particularly noticeable in the reactions to General Musa’s comments, which, while uncomfortable for some, drew an exaggerated backlash from those who staunchly defend El Rufai. Interestingly, these same defenders are well aware of El Rufai’s past actions and statements, yet their loyalty seems to cloud their judgment about his potential flaws. This selective memory or intentional ignorance serves to shield their favored leaders, ultimately hindering meaningful discussion and the chance for growth within the political landscape.

The story of El Rufai tends to stir up quite a bit of passion. During his time as governor of Kaduna State, he rolled out some initiatives that many praised, but he also implemented policies that sparked controversy. Supporters often highlight his achievements in development, infrastructure, and administrative reforms. On the flip side, critics point to moments where they feel he was too heavy-handed, used divisive language, or enacted policies that worsened societal divides. What’s particularly striking is the difference in how these two figures are perceived. General Musa faces a storm of criticism for his remarks, while El Rufai, despite having a more complicated public record, seems to enjoy a protective bubble from the same level of scrutiny thanks to his loyal supporters. This difference hints at how political loyalties and personal feelings can cloud objective judgment. 

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

My conversations with those eager to “crucify General Musa” while claiming to “know El Rufai very well” really highlight this double standard. It shows just how powerful established narratives can be and how we often cling to our beliefs, even when faced with evidence that contradicts them. Public figures, given their roles, hold a lot of sway and are naturally under a microscope. Their actions and words can shape public opinion, influence policy, and steer national conversations. General Musa’s comments, regardless of what he meant, have clearly struck a chord with some people, leading to discomfort and calls for him to be held accountable. This kind of engagement is a vital part of a healthy democracy. However, it’s disheartening to see that this level of accountability isn’t consistently applied across the board. What frustrates me is that the same people who are quick to criticize General Musa often go quiet when it comes to examining the actions of those they admire. This selective outrage is not only disingenuous but also undermines the very principles of fairness and justice that a democratic society should uphold. 

While there’s often a lot of passion in discussions, it can quickly turn into unhelpful attacks. The real challenge is finding a way to direct that energy into more thoughtful and evidence-based critiques. Instead of simply condemning or idolizing, we need a space for reasoned debate where policies and statements are assessed based on their actual merits and flaws. I truly believe that Nigeria needs a more mature political discourse—one where people are evaluated by their actions and words, rather than the size of their following or the fervor of their critics. 

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

Public figures, no matter their past achievements or current affiliations, should be held to a consistent standard of accountability. In this digital age, while we enjoy unprecedented connectivity and access to information, we also face a major challenge: the spread of misinformation and the deepening of biased viewpoints. This situation reflects a wider societal trend where conclusions are drawn without engaging with primary sources, leading to the misrepresentation of individuals. These snap judgments often stem from pre-existing biases or outside influences, making it difficult to assess situations fairly and rationally.

Over the past few days, I’ve noticed something interesting from my conversations with various people: it seems like “none of them actually watched that interview with Seun Okinbaloye before jumping to conclusions.” This really highlights a troubling trend of intellectual laziness or, perhaps, willful ignorance. In the realm of public opinion, especially when it comes to politics, many folks tend to latch onto popular narratives without bothering to verify the facts for themselves. There are a few reasons for this. For one, the sheer amount of information out there can be downright overwhelming, which often leads people to rely on quick summaries or the interpretations of sources they trust—even if those sources might have their own biases. Then there’s confirmation bias, which is a big player here; people tend to seek out information that backs up their existing beliefs while ignoring anything that contradicts them. Take the Minister of Defense, for example. It’s likely that negative views, fueled by political rivals or media stories, set the stage for quick condemnation, making the details of the Seun Okinbaloye interview irrelevant to those who were already convinced. 

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

This creates an echo chamber where differing opinions are pushed aside, allowing a single, often skewed, narrative to take hold. Those who “kick in the dark” without fully engaging with the interview’s context might not be acting out of true conviction; they could be either unwitting or willing players in a larger scheme. Their statements, while appearing independent, might actually be part of a strategy to serve the interests of those who gain from a specific portrayal of the Minister of Defense. This situation underscores the need for media literacy and critical thinking skills in a world where narratives can be crafted for political advantage. Without these essential skills, the public can easily fall prey to manufactured outrage or sympathy, clouding the truth.

I truly believe that if we approach the interview with an open mind, it can lead to a whole new understanding. The suggestion to watch it “more than three times,” as I did with some friends, really highlights how important the nuances, context, and specific arguments are for a fair evaluation. It’s striking that “all Muslims of fair and sound mind” who took the time to watch the interview felt that the general was “rather misrepresented when considering the context.” This really calls into question the rush to judgment that many had. It seems clear that the interview might have included parts that were taken out of context, selectively edited, or even misinterpreted by those with their own agendas. 

READ ALSO: https://newsng.ng/kashim-shettima-dirty-datti-and-his-tinubu-cap-theory/

When we dig into the original material, we might uncover the true meaning and the speaker’s actual stance, which could expose how shallow the initial criticisms were. This really emphasizes the ethical responsibility of both content creators and consumers to focus on context and resist the temptation of oversimplified narratives. The notion of “misrepresentation” hints at a deliberate distortion, where the original message was twisted to fit a pre-existing negative narrative. While constructive criticism can be a great way to foster improvement, malicious or politically driven opposition can really hinder effective governance. By openly supporting initiatives that encourage reconciliation and inclusivity, the minister is showing a real commitment to tackling the systemic issues that our nation faces. The critics’ failure to recognize Governor Sani’s positive contributions, or the minister’s backing of those efforts, reveals a potential bias or an agenda that seems more focused on dissent than on acknowledging real progress. This kind of selective criticism suggests that their opposition isn’t about wanting better governance; it might just be rooted in a political rivalry against the minister or the administration they represent.

By supporting Governor Sani’s initiatives to mend religious rifts in Kaduna, the minister is playing an active role in the broader mission of national unity. This approach is more about taking initiative than simply reacting to circumstances. It marks a shift away from the divisive politics that can often overshadow Nigerian public life. The critics’ reluctance to acknowledge this positive strategy highlights just how challenging it can be to bring about change in such a polarized atmosphere. Yet, for the minister, the encouragement from people all over the country, along with the potential for meaningful progress in places like Kaduna, should be a strong source of motivation. Their leadership, in this light, is not defined by the absence of dissenters but by the real steps taken towards unity and the warm reception from a diverse range of citizens. It’s a rallying cry for all Nigerians to adopt this spirit of national togetherness, understanding that our shared advancement depends on our willingness to recognize and support efforts that promote understanding and bridge our divides. 

* James Bwala, PhD, writes from Abuja

The Perils of Preconceived Notions: General Musa, Seun Okinbaloye, and Channels Interview