Christian Genocide Controversy: MURIC Accuses CAN of Betraying Tinubu After Trump Re-Designates Nigeria as ‘Country of Particular Concern’
In a development that underscores the enduring tension between religion and politics in Nigeria, the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has accused the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) of betraying President Bola Ahmed Tinubu by allegedly facilitating or influencing U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent decision to re-designate Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for alleged genocide and persecution of Christians.
This accusation, which has ignited fierce reactions across Nigeria’s socio-religious landscape, marks another chapter in the long-running debate over the country’s image abroad, particularly on issues of religious freedom, state protection, and ethnic violence.
At the core of this controversy lies a fundamental question: Is Nigeria truly persecuting Christians, or is this another case of political exaggeration and misrepresentation?
On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump placed Nigeria back on the CPC list — a diplomatic classification reserved for nations accused of severe violations of religious freedom. This move comes after Nigeria had been delisted in previous years under former President Joe Biden’s administration, which had opted for diplomatic engagement over punitive labeling.
The Trump administration’s decision was reportedly based on “credible reports of targeted killings of Christians, destruction of churches, and systematic discrimination.” The redesignation automatically reopens debates about the state’s handling of religiously motivated violence, particularly in the Middle Belt and parts of Northern Nigeria.
While human rights advocates in the U.S. and Nigeria welcomed the move as overdue recognition of ongoing atrocities, MURIC interpreted it as a politically motivated act rooted in misinformation allegedly supplied by Christian lobbyists.
Professor Ishaq Akintola, Founder and Executive Director of MURIC, issued a strongly worded statement accusing CAN of orchestrating the “negative narrative” that led to the U.S. decision.
“Despite vehement denial of Christian genocide by the Nigerian government, U.S. President Donald Trump yesterday redesignated Nigeria as a country of particular concern,” Akintola said.
“Certain Christian leaders wrote frivolous petitions to the U.S. Congress claiming that Christians were the only ones being killed by terrorists in Nigeria. Instead of debunking this false and misleading narrative, the Christian Association of Nigeria amplified it.”
According to Akintola, this act amounted to a “stab in the back” against President Tinubu, whom MURIC described as “one of the most generous Nigerian leaders towards Christians in modern history.”
The group further argued that CAN’s alleged betrayal was particularly disappointing because Tinubu had given Christians “preferential treatment” in his appointments and governance structure.
MURIC’s statement placed heavy emphasis on the President’s record of inclusion and appointments across religious lines.
“The president himself confirmed that 62% of all appointments went to Christians,” Akintola said. “The First Lady, Senator Remi Tinubu, was even more generous than Father Christmas. In spite of all that was done for Nigerian Christians by this administration, they still deemed it fit to take Nigeria to the enabler of Gaza genocide.”
This reference to Gaza underscores MURIC’s attempt to draw parallels between U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and what they perceive as its hypocrisy in labeling Nigeria a persecutor.
But for many observers, this framing raises deeper questions: Can political appointments serve as proof of religious fairness, and should gratitude for such appointments silence reports of systemic violence?
As of the time of writing, CAN has not issued an official response to MURIC’s accusations. However, several Christian commentators online dismissed the claims as “Islamist propaganda,” arguing that the data on killings and church attacks in Nigeria speak for themselves.
The controversy highlights a broader issue — the politicization of religious identity in Nigeria’s public discourse.
For years, both Muslim and Christian groups have accused each other of exaggerating persecution narratives to gain political leverage or foreign sympathy. The result is a cycle of mutual suspicion that undermines national unity and complicates international engagement.
Donald Trump’s redesignation of Nigeria comes amid his renewed courtship of evangelical voters in the United States. His decision aligns with conservative Christian advocacy groups that have long lobbied for Washington to take a tougher stance against Nigeria over alleged Christian killings.
This raises legitimate questions about timing and intent. Was Trump’s decision purely based on human rights concerns, or did it serve his domestic political agenda?
MURIC clearly believes it is the latter.
“The US may be pursuing its own foreign policy interests, but the ultimate blame lies with Nigerians who supplied misleading narratives to American authorities,” Akintola declared.
While MURIC insists there is no “Christian genocide,” the facts on the ground paint a more nuanced picture.
Independent reports by groups such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and SBM Intelligence confirm that thousands of Christians have been killed in the last decade, particularly in the Middle Belt and Northwest, often by armed herders or extremist groups.
However, these reports also note that Muslims have been victims of reprisal attacks, terrorism, and banditry in equal measure, complicating the narrative of one-sided persecution.
This complexity is often lost in the polarized rhetoric between groups like MURIC and CAN — each seeking to claim the moral high ground in a country already strained by insecurity, poverty, and ethno-religious fragmentation.
Trump’s CPC decision could have tangible diplomatic and economic consequences. Being on the list subjects Nigeria to potential sanctions, aid restrictions, and enhanced scrutiny under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA).
For Tinubu’s administration, this comes at a delicate time when Nigeria is struggling to attract foreign investment, rebuild international credibility, and manage economic hardship.
Already, U.S. officials have hinted that continued reports of “religiously targeted violence” could influence bilateral cooperation on defense, trade, and security.
MURIC’s outrage reflects not only religious defensiveness but also geopolitical anxiety — the fear that Nigeria could once again become a pariah in Western diplomacy.
The story sparked intense reactions on Nigerian social media, with thousands of comments across platforms reflecting deep divisions.
While some supported MURIC’s call for loyalty and unity, many others accused the organization of hypocrisy and denial.
A Facebook commenter wrote:
“In a country where security agencies give tactical cover to herdsmen and terrorists attacking Christian communities, what generosity are they talking about?”
Another retorted:
“So, MURIC, when did CAN meet Trump? Or when did CAN become his spokesman? This is just political manipulation.”
Some went further, calling MURIC “a terrorist-sympathizing group,” while others defended it as “a voice of truth against Western manipulation.”
The digital debate underscores a harsh reality: Nigerians are united in frustration but divided in faith.
At the philosophical level, MURIC’s statement invokes a troubling notion — that Christians owe political loyalty to Tinubu in exchange for appointments or inclusion.
This logic is at odds with the secular foundation of the Nigerian constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion and equality before the law.
Political analysts argue that when appointments are presented as “favors to a religious group,” it undermines meritocracy and fuels sectarian entitlement.
CAN, for its part, has long argued that no amount of political inclusion compensates for lives lost to violence. Their silence in this case may be strategic, allowing the storm of public debate to pass without direct confrontation.
Nigeria’s religious narrative has always been a delicate balancing act.
In a nation where more than 95 million people identify as Christians and roughly the same number as Muslims, every act of violence is viewed through the prism of faith.
The CPC controversy thus becomes more than just a diplomatic matter; it is a mirror reflecting Nigeria’s internal fractures — mistrust, politicized faith, and the inability of state institutions to deliver justice across religious lines.
To understand today’s tension, one must revisit Nigeria’s colonial and post-independence history.
British indirect rule entrenched ethnic and religious divisions by design. The North was administered largely through Islamic emirates, while the South was opened to Christian missionary influence. The resulting cultural bifurcation set the stage for today’s competing narratives of persecution and dominance.
Since independence, successive governments — whether military or civilian — have struggled to balance these inherited contradictions. Tinubu’s administration, like many before it, faces the same dilemma: how to maintain national unity amid deep religious suspicion.
In Washington, the CPC listing is seen as a moral stance. In Abuja, it is seen as an insult.
MURIC’s fiery rhetoric mirrors a broader sentiment among Nigerian elites who feel that Western nations selectively amplify Christian suffering while ignoring Muslim casualties or the broader socioeconomic roots of violence.
However, critics argue that denial is not a strategy.
Ignoring religious dimensions of conflict, they say, risks perpetuating impunity and deepening resentment. What Nigeria needs, they argue, is truth, justice, and reform — not propaganda battles between MURIC and CAN.
For President Tinubu, the CPC redesignation is a diplomatic and moral test.
If his government can demonstrate tangible progress in protecting religious minorities, holding perpetrators accountable, and promoting inclusive governance, Nigeria may regain international credibility.
However, if the administration — and its allies like MURIC — continue to frame criticism as betrayal, it could alienate key partners and further erode public trust at home.
The Tinubu presidency’s response will determine whether this crisis becomes a turning point for religious tolerance or another episode in Nigeria’s cycle of sectarian politics.
At the heart of this controversy lies a moral crossroads.
If Nigeria is to move forward, both MURIC and CAN must rise above sectarian defensiveness and confront the shared tragedy of Nigerian bloodshed.
Religious violence in Nigeria is not a Christian problem or a Muslim problem — it is a Nigerian problem. The thousands who have died in Benue, Plateau, Borno, and Zamfara did not perish for theology; they perished because the state failed to protect them.
Trump’s CPC decision and MURIC’s outrage may dominate headlines for now, but history will judge Nigeria not by who shouted the loudest — but by who built the bridge.