Christian Genocide: When narratives travel further than truth

The recent revelation by U.S. broadcaster Tony Perkins that he refused to host Nigeria’s First Lady, Remi Tinubu, when she visited USA, says a lot about how far a particular narrative about Nigeria has travelled. Perkins claimed he didn’t want his platform used to “cover up” the killing of Christians in Nigeria. This is clearly […]

The recent revelation by U.S. broadcaster Tony Perkins that he refused to host Nigeria’s First Lady, Remi Tinubu, when she visited USA, says a lot about how far a particular narrative about Nigeria has travelled. Perkins claimed he didn’t want his platform used to “cover up” the killing of Christians in Nigeria. This is clearly a damning word that has clearly found a fertile ground in Washington.

But here’s the uncomfortable question many Nigerians keep asking: how did we get here?

Nigeria’s security challenges are real. No sensible person denies that. Terrorism, banditry, communal clashes, and criminal violence have taken lives across religious and ethnic lines. Christians, Muslims, and traditional worshippers alike have all been victims. Yet somewhere along the line, a complex security crisis was flattened into a single, sensational headline: Christian genocide in Nigeria.

That framing did not just appear out of thin air.

The INEC Chairman Prof. Joash Ojo Amupitan, who amplified and legitimised this narrative on the global stage, has never taken responsibility for the damage it caused. Despite serious questions around the accuracy and consequences of those claims, he neither retracted them nor apologised to Nigerians. Instead, he has moved on quietly, now sitting comfortably as the Chairman of INEC, one of the most sensitive and powerful institutions in the country.

The same country is battling to convince the world that it is not orchestrating a religious war is also unwilling or unable to address the role played by this INEC Chairman who helped sell that story abroad. No investigation. No accountability. Just silence.

And that silence is costly. That is why a U.S. broadcaster can feel confident enough to publicly dismiss our First Lady. That is why Nigeria keeps finding itself on lists like “Country of Particular Concern,” despite repeated government assurances and diplomatic efforts. Once a narrative hardens, facts struggle to catch up.

What makes this even more frustrating is the government’s apparent indifference. You would think that a claim serious enough to damage Nigeria’s international standing would at least provoke an official review or a public clarification. Instead, Nigerians are left watching as reputational damage piles up, while those linked to the origin of the controversy face no consequences.

My position here is about honesty, balance, and responsibility. You cannot fight misinformation abroad while protecting its sources at home. You cannot ask the world to listen to you while ignoring the contradictions in your own house.

Until Nigeria confronts the roots of these false  narratives and the people who helped export them, the country will keep losing the media war, no matter who appears or doesn’t appear on American television.

And sadly, Nigeria will keep paying the price.

 

Rayyanu Bala wrote from Lafia, can be reached  via  [email protected]