Recently, the United States imposed sanctions on Nigeria, citing the alleged genocide of a specific religious group amid the broader issue o...
Recently, the United States imposed sanctions on Nigeria, citing the alleged genocide of a specific religious group amid the broader issue of insecurity. Nigeria's Information Minister, Alhaji Mohammed Idris, in a speech given at an event and aired multiple times on NTA, accused outsiders of promoting a misleading genocide narrative that led to the threatened sanctions. It appears he is unaware of how the practice of labeling insecurity differently began, which makes his argument very troubling. Some Nigerians claimed that America's view did not align with Nigeria's actual situation. However, these same individuals had, over the past decade, described the security situation through limited, ethnic, and religious biases. Others remained quiet while media outlets attributed the causes of insecurity to just one ethnic group.
News anchors, talk show hosts, and their guests provided limited and uneducated opinions. They frequently blamed the Fulani people, casually referring to "suspected Fulani herders" as the cause of every crime without verification from security agencies. Last month, a Nigerian analyst living in Germany appeared on Al Jazeera TV and attributed the insecurity in Nigeria solely to Boko Haram. Years ago, when a Catholic church and a Deeper Life Church building were bombed in Ondo State and other areas, the immediate reaction was to accuse Fulani herders of the attacks. A famous professor and novelist even visited the Ondo governor at that time and made such claims about the Fulani on television. Later, the State Security Service arrested the masterminds, who turned out to be recognized terrorists named Omeiza and Otuho.
When Fulani herders and "unknown gunmen" were wrongly accused of kidnapping in Anambra and Imo states, many biased Nigerians accepted this claim. At the same time, state governors Charles Soludo and Hope Uzodinma stated publicly that kidnapping was "99.9 per cent" carried out by people from their own Southeast region. Should it then be surprising that when terms like "ethnic cleansing," "religious persecution," and later "genocide" appeared among those with historical conflicts with the Fulani, other Nigerian believers accepted these claims? It should be noted that over the past ten years, I have been the leading journalist who consistently highlighted that blaming every attack on "suspected Fulani herders" was not only biased but also dishonest, given the information I possessed.
I had argued that the unprofessional behavior being shown would prevent Nigeria from offering suitable solutions since the assessment was distorted. Individuals who now criticize US threats and media outlets that claimed it was time for journalists to "unite" had earlier supported one-sided stories that resulted in sanctions. It should be noted that the stories they promoted over the past ten years were gathered online and used to convince the US government that widespread insecurity in Nigeria amounted to genocide. I have been stating for years that senior government officials remained quiet as some Nigerians traveled to the US before 2016, where they shared a narrative of religious persecution with their American audiences. Under the current Nigerian administration, we also observed these advocates at work on television.
At a certain point, I mentioned here that only President Bola Tinubu provided a defense as Nigerians presented their own account of events to foreigners. After the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement following the President's remarks, I questioned whether those who drafted the denials genuinely believed in what they wrote. Why? Religious figures within the government accepted whatever their fellow religious individuals claimed regarding insecurity in their regions. Over the past decade, officials from the Federal Government did not challenge the narrative that attributed insecurity to a single ethnic group. No one explained that criminal acts are more complex than the simplistic 'one side attacks the other' storyline, and that in some areas, both sides are involved in various forms of retaliatory attacks.
Following the US's declaration of threats, the information minister stated that the claim of genocide targeting members of a single religion is "foreign-driven." This is not accurate. The initiative is driven by Nigerians and has been ongoing since before 2016. Nigeria was labeled as a "country of particular concern" in 2020. In 2021, the administration of President Joe Biden removed this designation, but the same individuals continued their efforts to have it restored. These people openly revealed their intentions. Early in 2023, the head of a union in one of Kaduna State's regions stated that they did not trust the Nigerian government, neither the then-current Muhammadu Buhari administration nor the incoming Tinubu administration, and that they favored foreign involvement. I criticized his unrealistic statement at that time.
At a gathering where other federal ministers were present this November, the information minister reiterated his stance that the genocide narrative is being promoted by external forces. At that moment, the Minister of Mines, Chief Dele Alake, stated that those leading the campaign against Nigeria are locals. For me, if the information minister is guided by certain individuals to adopt this narrative, it suggests that those around him exploit their influence to shift focus from Nigerians who are actually responsible for pushing for sanctions against Nigeria. Right within government offices, this country is being undermined due to religious and ethnic biases. It is alarming that following the events months ago—when Nigerians met with U.S. lawmakers—Nigeria's top spokesperson is still asserting that the genocide narrative and the efforts to sanction Nigeria are driven by foreign interests.
Both local residents and foreigners who presented their perspectives to U.S. officials were, over the years, influenced by other Nigerians present here who spread inaccurate information about the country's security situation.
Approximately five years ago, I reviewed a submission by the same professor and author I previously mentioned, which was aired on Channels TV. During a 15-minute segment of the one-hour interview, everything the professor said about insecurity seemed to be an outlet for his resentment towards a particular Fulani association. He spoke as if all crimes in Nigeria were committed by the Fulani people. At that time, I wrote on this page that this professor led younger Nigerians to believe the Fulani were responsible for widespread insecurity, whereas in reality, the issue originated with another ethnic group in the North-East of Nigeria in 2009. We can now observe the direct result of this incorrect analysis in the recent US sanctions imposed on a Fulani association. Meanwhile, banned armed groups in the South-East of Nigeria, which conduct attacks on their own people of the same religion, as well as on Nigerian soldiers and police, remain unsanctioned.
In the past ten years, I have criticized news outlets that lacked reporters on the ground in the north-central region, yet claimed that "suspected Fulani herders" were responsible for every attack. Recently, I addressed here a TV presenter who unilaterally attributed crimes in Benue State to Fulani herders without providing any sources. Frequently, online news platforms accused the Fulani of attacks in North-Central Nigeria but failed to provide references. Nevertheless, this kind of reporting was the basis for data used by foreign research organizations relying on open sources. Over the years, I have been recognized online for my criticism of these media outlets' misrepresentation. I highlighted this pattern of demonizing the Fulani to the US and UK embassies, the EU, and the UN, all through online channels. I urged them to cease associating with news platforms that continued to discriminate against any Nigerian ethnic group.
The habit of consistently portraying Fulani individuals as culprits in news reports without any solid proof decreased afterward, and a Nigerian citizen living overseas inquired online about the reasons behind this. I elaborated on this page about the part I took in the issue over the past ten years. Nevertheless, some online news outlets kept up, and I kept highlighting their divisive behavior, with my main worry being the possible effects of their actions on the country. Now the results are evident, and some of them are now expressing different views, acting as if they had no role in this situation.
It amazes me how media regulatory bodies, especially the National Broadcasting Commission, permitted professionals to promote biased perspectives on insecurity for such an extended period. Radio hosts focused exclusively on the deaths of individuals from one religion in the North, ignoring those from other faiths. Television personnel or independent presenters addressed insecurity but intentionally highlighted "killings occurring in Benue and Plateau," omitting the incidents in Katsina, Zamfara, or Kebbi states. This was the subtle way those with prejudiced views assigned a different label to insecurity. Their combined efforts made the genocide story seem credible over time while regulatory authorities remained passive. Is it then surprising that even the information minister had an incorrect perspective, yet no professional in government corrected him?
Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
COMMENTS