Nigerian interfaith community, the security crisis, and “Christian genocide”

Nigeria’s security crisis has become a crucible for the country’s interfaith relations. While religious leaders and organizations are often invoked as moral anchors, their visible presence on the ground and their collective voice in national discourse have been uneven. This article examines how the national platform of interfaith relations in Nigeria, the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council […]

Nigeria’s security crisis has become a crucible for the country’s interfaith relations. While religious leaders and organizations are often invoked as moral anchors, their visible presence on the ground and their collective voice in national discourse have been uneven. This article examines how the national platform of interfaith relations in Nigeria, the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) has engaged – or failed to engage – with Nigeria security crisis, and why its silence contributes to the amplification of the claim of a “Christian genocide”- a stark misrepresentation of a far more complex reality.

Nigeria’s security nightmare has sparked a flood of statements from religious leaders, but the national interfaith council – the body that brings together Christian and Muslim heads – until a few days ago, has been conspicuously silent in the public arena. While groups like Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), and individual clerics and faith-based organizations have spoken out, NIREC’s absence is still felt in the national conversation about the “Christian genocide” narrative. At the same time, some Christian leaders within NIREC have framed the violence as a targeted campaign against Christians, a narrative that weakens NIREC, and being promoted by right-wing Christian groups abroad, causing misinformation to spread unchecked.

Our nation’s religious landscape is a tapestry of Muslims, Christians and others who coexist in families, neighbourhoods, and markets. It is true that interfaith bodies and regional mixed-faith coalitions have, at times, mobilized joint prayers, humanitarian convoys, and peace delegations, NIREC’s powerful platform has however not been fully used to coordinate or strengthen interfaith voice to acknowledge the suffering of all communities it claims to represent, or address the root drivers of insecurity: poverty, unemployment, violent extremism, resource competition, regional politics, and governance deficits. It is true that these drivers are often talked about in meetings and webinars, most often, the absence of a unified national platform engaged in sustained, visible interfaith peacebuilding initiatives, especially in the most affected zones, leaves a perceived vacuum that extremists, groups and individuals, local and foreign, exploit to deepen divisions.

When far-right U.S. groups and their Nigerian collaborators were mounting a concerted effort to place Nigeria on the United States’ list of Countries of Particular Concern, the need for a coordinated voice from NIREC was more critical than ever. Similarly, when Nigerians and Nigerian government battled against foreign interference and direct threats of military attack and sanctions, NIREC was nowhere to be found. A united voice framing the violence as a national tragedy affecting all faiths, countering the “genocide” label that some foreign media and foreign politicians have pushed, publicly rejecting the term while acknowledging the pain of Christian victims, Muslim victims, in fact all Nigerian victims was and is still missing. This lack of an official NIREC response left a vacuum that other, more vocal groups has filled, often obscuring the multifaceted nature of the crisis. However, what NIREC fails to see is that the misrepresentation of the security crisis as a “Christian genocide” that it allowed to fester, in fact undermines it. It weakens interfaith cooperation by reinforcing a victim-versus-perpetrator dichotomy that does not reflect the lived reality of many Nigerians who continue to live in mixed-faith families and neighbourhoods. Most importantly, it fosters distrust and suspicion within the organization itself, two corrosive forces that gnaw at the very foundation of the organization.

At a time that may be most pivotal since its inception, NIREC missed an important opportunity to steer the “Christian genocide” narrative away from sensationalism and toward a collective, fact-driven narrative that reflects the suffering of every Nigerian. When the leaders of the NSCIA and CAN speak individually on the security crisis and how it affects Nigerians, or when they meet President Tinubu, they do so without a unified NIREC stamp, which dilute the interfaith weight behind their appeal. NIREC’s words, spoken in authoritative voice, could have offered to governments and groups, a balanced narrative that stresses data-driven analysis like that shown by Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), whose reports indicate that, while Christians have suffered, the majority of victims of Boko Haram and ISWAP (terrorist groups) are Muslims, and religiously-motivated attacks account for only a small fraction of overall violence. Left with no other choice or partner, this was the action NSCIA had to take in its press conference on 9th November, 2025.

Obviously, without NIREC’s endorsement, NSCIA came out to publicly acknowledge the pains on all sides, while rejecting the “Christian genocide” framing. NSCIA’s action became a duty in the face of NIREC’s silence which became a deafening absence that echoes through the streets of towns and villages alike.

Sadly, the council’s traditional role as a moral compass for the nation has been diluted to the point of allowing sectarian spat amid episodic webinars and communique when the perilous situation, we face demands nothing less than courage, leadership, truthfulness and collective action. Actions that bridge the divides of ethnicity, religion, and region. As the country teeters on the brink, certain Christian leaders of NIREC fail to set aside partisan interests that is like an evil wind, choosing always to amplify, even lead, the extreme and divisive voices?

The time is now for NIREC to implement concrete reforms and move from occasional gestures to a permanent, visible, and genuine work for peace. For its own survival and the ideals upon which it was founded, it needs to take immediate steps to develop a comprehensive framework that integrates interfaith relations and peacebuilding with security management.

In this instance, I offer a handful of recommendations that could help shape the discourse: The cornerstone of any effective intervention is accurate, timely information. To this end, a joint data verification unit can be created, staffed by statisticians, security analysts, and religious scholars. The unit’s mandate would be to produce monthly reports that disaggregate casualties by faith, geography, and perpetrator. By systematically cataloguing incidents, the unit can identify patterns, expose misinformation, and provide policymakers with an evidence base for targeted interventions. The involvement of religious scholars ensures that the classification of victims respects communal sensitivities, while statisticians guarantee methodological rigor and security analysts contextualize the data within broader threat landscapes.

NIREC may also engage in joint community policing pilots in the states most prone to sectarian flare-ups, where “NIREC peace officers” receive training on conflict resolution and cultural competence. Simultaneously, the swift operationalisation with the zonal police commands – structures that bridge local law enforcement with regional oversight – can enhance coordination and accountability. By embedding interfaith peace advocates and peace-builders within the security architecture, the states most prone to violence will be signalling their commitment to protecting all citizens, irrespective of creed, and builds trust between law enforcement and the diverse communities they serve.

Also, there needs to be joint engagement of international partners on the basis of verified data. International partners often respond to crises based on headline grabbing narratives, which can inadvertently exacerbate divisions by framing aid along religious lines. To counter this, NIREC should jointly engage these partners using the verified data generated by the aforementioned unit, or any other credible sources acceptable to all parties. By presenting a transparent, empirical picture of the violence, it will be impossible for individual and groups to manufacture sensational and divisive narratives, exaggerate religious tensions and play out a political agenda as we see presently. The government will be able to turn to the interfaith community for reliable, non-sectarian information. Also, donors will be able to provide humanitarian assistance and capacity-building programs that benefit all affected communities, rather than allocating resources based on sectarian considerations.

Finally, a nationwide “Unity Campaign” led by respected religious leaders can galvanize public opinion against extremist propaganda. The campaign would feature joint messages of tolerance, fact-checking hotlines, and grassroots dialogues that bring together clerics, youth, and community members. By leveraging the moral authority of their members, NIREC can use such initiative to counter misinformation, promote social cohesion, and create safe spaces for dialogue. The inclusion of hotlines ensures that misinformation is swiftly addressed, while grassroots dialogues empower local actors to develop context-specific solutions to the drivers of violence.

Such an integrated approach not only mitigates immediate violence but also lays the groundwork for a more resilient, inclusive, and peaceful Nigeria. Only through a genuine partnership can trust be rebuilt within NIREC itself and the promise of a peaceful, prosperous Nigeria be realized. The time for rhetoric, sensationalism and partisanship has passed; the time for concerted, compassionate leadership is now. Let this be the moment NIREC steps forward, not as a silent observer, but as the catalyst for a Nigeria that truly reflects the aspirations of all its people.

 

Disu Kamor is the Executive Chairman, Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC)