Nigeria Weaponizes Sovereignty To Silence Global Outrage On Targeted Religious Killings

Nigeria Weaponizes Sovereignty To Silence Global Outrage On Targeted Religious Killings In the volatile landscape of Nigeria's security ...

Nigeria Weaponizes Sovereignty To Silence Global Outrage On Targeted Religious Killings

In the volatile landscape of Nigeria's security crisis, the invocation of "respect for sovereignty" has long been a rallying cry for the government and northern leaders when faced with international scrutiny over the slaughter of Christians by groups like Boko Haram and its affiliates. As of early 2026, with fresh U.S. airstrikes highlighting the issue, this stance warrants sharp examination. 

Nigeria's northeast and northwest regions have been battlegrounds for over a decade, with Boko Haram now splintered into factions like the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) waging a brutal insurgency. Founded on extremist ideology opposing Western influences, the group has killed tens of thousands since 2009, displacing millions, targeting Christians and symbols of education. Christians, who make up about half of Nigeria's population, have suffered disproportionately in certain areas. Advocacy groups report over 60,000 Christian deaths linked to Islamist violence since the insurgency began, with attacks on churches and communities often framed as jihad. In 2025 alone, incidents included the June massacre of over 150 displaced people at a Catholic mission in central Nigeria, attributed to Fulani herder militias with alleged extremist ties, and Christmas-season attacks by IS-affiliated groups in the northwest.

The Nigerian government's response has been a patchwork of military operations, such as the Multinational Joint Task Force with neighbors, but marred by inconsistencies and allegations of bias. Under President Bola Tinubu, officials have repeatedly denied targeted persecution, with statements in September 2025 claiming "there's no religious persecution in Nigeria" despite evidence to the contrary. This denialism extends to rejecting U.S. designations of Nigeria as a "country of particular concern" for religious freedom violations, calling them "fundamentally misinformed."

Criticism is particularly deserved for the government's historical weaponization of sovereignty to fend off external help. In November 2025, when U.S. President Donald Trump threatened military intervention and aid cuts over alleged Christian killings, Nigeria dismissed the claims as a "hoax" and emphasized its sovereign right to handle internal affairs. Northern leaders, many from Muslim-majority states, have echoed this, often downplaying the slaughter of Christians and attributing violence to "criminal elements" or economic grievances. Policies like reintegrating "repentant" Boko Haram fighters into society—without adequate justice for victims have drawn ire, as they risk emboldening extremists and eroding trust.

This resistance has real consequences: Delayed action allows groups like Lakurawa, an emerging IS-linked faction in the northwest, to entrench themselves in ungoverned spaces, launching attacks that disproportionately hit Christian communities. By prioritizing sovereignty over collaboration, the government and northern elites have arguably enabled a cycle of violence through inaction, even if not through direct sponsorship. Accusations of complicity such as claims of state support for herder militias—lack concrete proof, but the failure to prosecute perpetrators fuels perceptions of bias.

The narrative shifted dramatically on December 25, 2025, when the U.S. conducted airstrikes against IS targets in Nigeria's Sokoto state, killing multiple militants in "perfect strikes." Trump framed this as a response to Christian persecution, following weeks of threats. Crucially, Nigeria under pressure cooperated, providing intelligence and approving the operation to avert unilateral U.S. action, aligning with "mutual respect for sovereignty" and international law. Nigerian Catholic leaders offered mixed reactions: Some welcomed the strikes as a blow to terrorists, while others cautioned against escalating foreign involvement.

This cooperation is a positive step, but it came only under intense pressure—highlighting a pattern of reactive rather than proactive governance. Why did it take threats of invasion for Nigeria to fully engage? Northern leaders' earlier defenses of sovereignty now appear selective, especially as the strikes targeted threats affecting all Nigerians. U.S. measures like visa restrictions and religious freedom designations underscore global frustration with Nigeria's slow response.

The Nigerian government and northern leaders must be held accountable for years of using sovereignty as a barrier to effective aid, prolonging a crisis that has claimed countless lives. Their denials and delays have enabled genocide. 

Family Writers Press International.