Nigeria’s presidential spokesperson has forcefully rejected allegations from Washington that Christians face systematic persecution in Africa’s most populous nation, insisting that security challenges affect people of all faiths equally.
Bayo Onanuga, Special Adviser to President Bola Tinubu on Information and Strategy, responded sharply on Saturday to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s claims about religious violence, declaring there is no ongoing slaughter of thousands of Christians and calling such assertions a gross exaggeration of Nigeria’s security situation.
The pushback comes after President Donald Trump designated Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern on Friday over allegations of Christian persecution, placing the nation alongside China, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia, and Pakistan on a State Department watchlist for severe religious freedom violations.
In a direct response to Rubio via social media platform X, Onanuga painted a different picture of Nigeria’s security landscape. He explained that sporadic attacks by bandits and terrorists target villages indiscriminately, with Christians, Muslims, churches and mosques all suffering random violence. The presidential aide emphasized that the attacks are “religiously insensitive,” meaning perpetrators do not distinguish between faiths when carrying out their criminal activities.
In a pointed three-word statement that captured widespread attention, Onanuga told Secretary Rubio that “Muslim lives matter too,” underscoring his argument that violence in Nigeria transcends religious boundaries.
The American designation followed claims by Representative Riley Moore that more than 7,000 Christians were killed in the first seven months of 2025 alone, averaging 35 deaths per day. Moore had formally requested that Rubio designate Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern on October 5, citing persecution and killings of Christians for professing their faith.
However, Onanuga dismissed these allegations, maintaining that Christians are not being targeted. He had previously told Senator Ted Cruz to stop “malicious, contrived lies” against Nigeria when Cruz raised similar concerns, insisting the country enjoys religious harmony.
The Nigerian government’s position, articulated through both Onanuga and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, frames the country’s security problems as primarily driven by criminality and banditry rather than religious persecution. Nigeria faces multiple security challenges including the Boko Haram insurgency in the northeast, banditry across northwestern states, farmer-herder conflicts in the Middle Belt, separatist agitation in the southeast, and criminal gangs operating across various regions, with violence often driven by economic factors, resource competition, and governance failures rather than primarily religious motivations.
Rather than accepting the Country of Particular Concern designation, Onanuga redirected the conversation toward what Nigeria actually needs from America, which he specified as military support to combat violent extremists operating in some states.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had already rejected Trump’s designation earlier, describing it as both misleading and unfair. Officials stressed that insecurity impacts Nigerians regardless of their religious affiliation and that the government remains committed to protecting the rights and freedoms of all faith communities.
The timing of Trump’s announcement raised questions, as it reportedly came after Vice President Kashim Shettima voiced support for Gaza at the recent United Nations General Assembly, which drew criticism from pro-Christian groups in the United States. This suggests the decision may reflect both humanitarian concerns and broader geopolitical considerations.
Both the Christian Association of Nigeria and the Presidency have dismissed allegations of Christian genocide, with CAN calling it a “false narrative peddled by foreign agents” while the presidency maintained there is no religious war anywhere in the country.
The designation carries largely symbolic weight under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, though it could potentially lead to diplomatic measures such as cancelled cultural exchanges and possible trade, security, or economic penalties.