This post has already been read at least 1114 times!

The re-designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) by the U.S. President, coupled with bellicose rhetoric about military intervention, is a crisis that the Federal Government cannot meet with patriotic indignation or emotional denial.
This is not a slight against national pride; it is an indictment of the state’s functional ability to protect its citizens.

The charges laid out—that an “existential threat” faces Christians due to “mass slaughter” by radical Islamists, which the Nigerian government has “tolerated”—are severe and legally specific under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998.

For Nigeria to effectively neutralise this diplomatic weapon, its reaction must be a cold, data-driven, institutional pivot—a strategic gambit that addresses the substance of the crisis, not the personality of the accuser.

The Institutional Imperative: Demolishing the “Tolerance” Charge

In view of the infamous maxim in Nigerian political discourse, always attributed to the Late General Sani Abacha, that “Any insurgency or terrorist invasion that lasts more than 24 hours, a government or political official has a hand in it”, we must understand that the core of the CPC designation is the charge of “tolerance”—the suggestion that the Nigerian State is passively or actively enabling the atrocities.

To defeat this, therefore, Nigeria must activate its institutional machinery to demonstrably and visibly pursue justice and prove that it has not been an enabler of terrorism over the years. This goes beyond defensive press releases; it demands action as far as the legislative, judicial, and security sectors.

The National Assembly must immediately transform into an engine of inquiry. The lawmakers should forthwith trigger parliamentary questions and committee reviews that scrutinize the failures of the security sector, especially as regards the inability to adequately respond to threats and protect lives of the citizens.

This public oversight demonstrates that the State is actively policing its own performance, rather than closing ranks as currently being presumed. That’s why a comprehensive judicial and human rights review is essential at this very moment. The Nigerian government must publish records showing the prosecution and conviction of perpetrators of mass killings—whether they are Boko Haram fighters, cattle rustlers, or rogue security agents.

To say the least, the prevailing culture of impunity, which forms the bedrock of the “tolerance” accusation, must be visibly shattered. This can be achieved if the diplomatic response shifts from counter-threats to counter-data. Nigeria needs to issue a factual, statesmanlike report that acknowledges that killings are happening across various communities, condemns all killings regardless of the victims’ faith or ethnicity, and provides an accurate, verifiable log of security actions taken—deployments, arrests, and trials—against all perpetrators. The most potent tool against the charge of tolerance is transparency, especially when transparency is not mouthed but seen by all parties.

Countering the Threat: The Genocide Threshold and Intent

Recall that in his threat, President Donald Trump warned, “​If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, “guns-a-blazing,” to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities…..”

He went ahead to add, “I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action….”

Finally, he further warned that in the event that the Federal Government did not move very fast to arrest the situation, “If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!”

While the CPC designation is serious, the surrounding rhetoric, including threats of military action against “Islamic terrorists,” pushes the discussion dangerously close to the United Nations definition of genocide.

Genocide, as defined by the UN, is not merely mass killing; it is mass killing with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, in whole or in part.

Nigeria’s strategic response must, therefore, be designed to negate the element of state-level intent or proven tolerance of the terror activities. The government must cease any perception of ethnic or religious bias in its security and justice operations, which permeated the political and security atmosphere during late President Muhammadu Buhari administration.

It must consider vigorously prosecuting any Fulani militant for killing Christians, treating it with the same urgency as prosecuting a counter-militant for reprisal killings against any Muslim in any part of the country. This will demonstrate that the Nigerian state’s intent is to maintain law and order for all citizens, not to participate in or tolerate the destruction of any ethnic or religious group.

The government should, through diplomats, frame the crisis as a failure of capacity and resource allocation in a complex, multi-front security environment, rather than a failure of political will or policy. This is a subtle but critical distinction that clearly separates criminal negligence from intentional complicity, which forms the root of the designation and threat of military action in the first place.

Leveraging the Pressure for Fundamental Reform

Nigerians should, in fact, welcome the CPC spotlight as a unique leverage point. The killings were happening long before the designation and the focus should remain on justice and institutional strengthening, not party politics or baseless national pride.

The current international pressure provides a mandate for civil society and the government to push for genuine, structural reforms, with Nigeria formally inviting a United Nations Special Rapporteur on religious violence or human rights to conduct an independent, unhindered assessment in the country. Such preemptive move, if Nigeria has nothing to hide, will demonstrate confidence and a commitment to truth that no defensive statement can match.

The CPC designation and thread provide the perfect context to demand the publication of security budget accountability and an independent audit is critical to ensure that resources are not fueling corruption rather than security.

Finally, creating a public, comprehensive National Victims Register will officially acknowledge the losses suffered by communities across the country, providing data for reparations and demonstrating the government’s commitment to all victims, regardless of their faith.

Conclusion: The Response of a Serious Nation

The right reaction from the Federal Government of Nigeria is to discard insults and nationalism. This is of utmost importance because responsibility is higher than pride. The government’s single-sentence mandate should be: “Thank you for raising concern—now let’s use this to pursue truth, justice, and transparency.”

Any wise nation in this kind of mess responds to external pressure not by circling the wagons, but by accelerating internal accountability, responding with verifiable data, and utilizing the global spotlight to force genuine, verifiable reforms in its security and justice systems.

This is the only strategic path forward to remove the stain of the CPC designation and restore faith, both domestically and internationally, in the Nigerian state.

Comrade James Ezema is a journalist, political strategist, and the National Coordinator of the Not Too Young To Perform (NTYTP), a leadership development advocacy group. He can be reached via email: jamesezema@gmail.com or WhatsApp: +234 8035823617.

This post has already been read at least 1114 times!