When history and law collide: The U.S., Nigeria and the charge of Christian Genocide
The push in the U.S. Senate some weeks ago to redesignate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern under religious-freedom law and to impose targeted sanctions on officials responsible for violence against Christians and other faith minorities marks a breakthrough moment. But before Washington demands accountability from Abuja, it must confront a less comfortable reality: this conflict is not a new outbreak but the continuation of a much older story — one that is entwined with slavery, colonial rule, religious identity, the age-old conflict between settled farmers and nomads, and state power.
“The result is that the violence of today is not a random outbreak of religious hatred. It is deeply rooted in over two centuries of structural inequality, contested identity, land and resource conflict, administrative control, and historical memory.”
A deep past: From Jihad to Indirect Rule
To understand why the Middle Belt is now aflame, we must trace the contours of history.
The Sokoto Jihad (c. 1804 and onwards): With Shehu Usman dan Fodio’s call for moral and political reform, a sweeping jihad expanded across Hausaland and beyond. His movement consolidated into the Sokoto Caliphate, which sought not only religious reform but also territorial and political dominance.
Slave raiding and assimilation: Long before, during and after the jihad, Muslim commanders and emirates launched raids into the forest and plateau zones of the Middle Belt and other parts of the North, capturing individuals from pagan or non-Muslim communities. These captives were absorbed into the Atlantic slave trade until that was abolished in 1807 and then into the Islamic slave trade—across trans-Saharan routes, to Middle Eastern markets, and internally within Nigeria.
Read also: Trump says Christians in Nigeria face ‘existential threat’, adds country to watch list
Colonial indirect rule: When the British conquered northern Nigeria in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Sokoto fell in 1903), they adopted a strategy of indirect rule. They co-opted existing Muslim emirs to administer large swaths of territory, including many non-Muslim ethnic groups in the Middle Belt and the rest of the North, rather than dismantling the inherited hierarchy. Christian mission work in the core North was often restricted by the colonial regime, unless permitted by the emirs.
Christian conversion as protest and path to mobility: Many of the non-Muslim minorities — such as the Tiv, Berom, Jukun, Bachama and others — adopted Christianity, in part as resistance to northern Muslim dominance, and in part because missionaries brought schools, literacy and administrative opportunity. Over time, Christian identity became intertwined with ethnic identity for many of these groups. The Tiv in Benue are NKST (Calvinist) or Catholic, the Berom in Plateau are COCIN (Baptist), the Jukun in Taraba are Calvinist, the Bura in Bornu are Church of the Brethren, the Bachama in Adamawa are Lutheran, and so on.
Rise to influence and backlash: After independence, the educated classes from minority Christian groups often rose to occupy civil service, administrative, and political roles, even within states that were majority Muslim. But their increasing influence triggered backlash — efforts by core northern elites to reclaim dominance, purge Christians from bureaucracies, and stoke communal violence.
The result is that the violence of today is not a random outbreak of religious hatred. It is deeply rooted in over two centuries of structural inequality, contested identity, land and resource conflict, administrative control, and historical memory.
Read also: Christian Genocide in Nigeria: Between CAN position and what data says
The 2001 Jos firestorm — Personal reckoning
I speak this history not as an armchair scholar but from lived experience. In September 2001, during one of the most vicious episodes in the Jos Christian–Muslim violence, I was nearly killed amid the chaos. The riots erupted on 7 September 2001, sparked by a dispute when a Christian woman tried to cross a barricaded road outside a mosque, and quickly escalated into large-scale bloodshed over more than ten days.
Estimates suggest as many as 1,000 people were killed, homes and places of worship were burnt, and tens of thousands were displaced. This was not an isolated, spontaneous clash. It was the ignition of long-standing grievances in the heart of Nigeria’s Middle Belt — grievances tied to identity, exclusion, and the legacy of contestation.
That moment for me was a reminder: when violence erupts here, it reverberates through memory, lineage, and injustice.
The U.S. moves: Law, morality, risk
The proposed Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act (S. 2747) would force the Secretary of State to label Nigeria a CPC and impose sanctions on officials enforcing blasphemy laws or tolerating religious violence. It leverages America’s long‐standing legal architecture for religious freedom, notably the International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).
Yet the law is blunt. It asks Nigeria to wear a moral scarlet letter — for actions that are not always neatly theological but tangled in politics, governance failure, criminal impunity, and land disputes.
Read also: Senate counters Christian genocide allegations, set to engage U.S. lawmakers
What might happen if the U.S. pushes forward?
Diplomatic rupture: Nigeria would view it as external moral policing, possibly provoking nationalist backlash and souring relations with the U.S.
Security cooperation at risk: The U.S. is deeply involved in counterterrorism, public health, and development in Nigeria. Sanctions could complicate those partnerships at a time when Nigeria remains vulnerable to Boko Haram, ISWAP, and porous regional borders.
Domestic political fallout: For President Tinubu’s fragile coalition, being tagged a CPC or having officials face sanctions offers ammunition to rivals who claim he’s weak or foreign-doomed. This would dim the political victory of Nigeria, just being taken off the grey list of countries with weak financial sector controls.
Collateral harm: Even targeted sanctions risk unintended effects on aid, investment, or financial flows that ordinary Nigerians depend on—especially in volatile regions.
Precedent on genocide claims: If Nigeria is declared a “Christian genocide” case, other countries may demand the same scrutiny (India, Pakistan, and China). The U.S. must be consistent in applying the term and avoid politicising genocide versus sectarian violence.
Toward a nuanced U.S. policy
If the U.S. truly wants to back Nigeria’s reform, not simply issue grand gestures, here’s a more constructive path:
Demand accountability at the local level: Support independent commissions, legal reform, and capacity building within Nigeria’s police, judiciary, and local governments.
Back inclusive governance and interfaith institutions: Invest in building bridges among Muslim, Christian, and minority communities, focusing on shared infrastructure, co-governance, and conflict resolution.
Use conditional leverage, not stamping power: If sanctions are necessary, attach clear benchmarks: prosecutions, institutional reforms (e.g., fair civil service recruitment), and transparent investigations — not blanket punishment.
Partner with local civil society: Nigerian Christian, Muslim, and interfaith groups should not be sidelined. Their voices must drive accountability and reconciliation.
Respect national sovereignty while insisting on norms: The U.S. must present pressure not as a supremacist moral judgement, but as support for Nigeria’s own constitutional ideals — especially Article 38’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Final word
The violence in Nigeria is widespread, undeniably real, persistent, and painful. U.S. calls to label it Christian genocide are understandable, especially when faith communities feel abandoned. But reducing complex conflict to a single religious narrative risks obfuscation and counterproductive backlash.
We must anchor action, whether moral, legislative, or diplomatic, in historical insight, local voices, and institutional reform. In doing so, the U.S. can move beyond symbolic flame and help Nigeria to confront its past, rebuild trust, and chart a genuinely inclusive future.
The author is Dr Wiebe Boer, Chief Growth Officer, JIPA Network.
