Professor Akeem Amodu is former Head of Department of Politics and International Relations, Lead City University, Ibadan. He is the current Director of Research, Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA – South West) and Vice Chairman, University Research Ethics Committee. The scholar’s strong view on the ongoing debate over the US President Donald Trump’s threat of military action against Nigeria over terrorism and insecurity generally, is enlightening and scholarly. In this interview with TheTabloid.net, he admonishes Nigeria’s President Bola Tinubu to approach Trump’s question with what he calls measured diplomacy. Excerpts
Did you see President Donald Trump’s threat against Nigeria coming before?
Not really, though anyone observing global trends, would have sensed that Nigeria’s worsening security challenges and sporadic religiously-coloured narratives could attract international attention. The U.S., and other global powers too, monitor human rights and religious freedom closely, and when domestic issues appear to escalate without decisive government action, diplomatic pressure is bound to follow. So, while I did not foresee the specific wording of President Trump’s declaration, the warning signs had been visible in Nigeria’s internal security and governance landscape over the years.
What exactly does his phrase “a Country of Particular Concern” infer?
In the U.S. diplomatic parlance, a “Country of Particular Concern” refers to a nation alleged to have tolerated or engaged in severe violations of religious freedom. It is a formal designation under the U.S. International Religious Freedom Act, and it typically precedes possible sanctions or restrictions. In this case, it implies that Washington views Nigeria as failing to adequately protect the rights and safety of its citizens, particularly those belonging to certain faith communities. However, such a label, while serious, often reflects perception rather than the full complexity of local realities. I, however, see the labelling as a wake up call for the Nigerian leadership to do the right thing.
Is the insecurity in Nigeria the same as genocide against the Christian population?
No no no, it would be misleading to define Nigeria’s insecurity as genocide. What we are witnessing is a complex mix of ethnic, economic, and ideological violence. This is driven by terrorism, banditry, and weak governance. What is happening is not the case of an organized state-sponsored campaign to annihilate a particular faith group. Sadly, both Christians and Muslims have suffered grievously in this turmoil. Some would say, however, that the membership of one faith had suffered more than the other. However, describing the conflict as a genocide risks oversimplifying a deeply layered crisis and further polarizing Nigerians along religious lines. What we need now as Nigerians is a united national resolve to defend every life, regardless of creed.
How potent or weak is Trump’s threat?
The threat has two sides. On one hand, it is politically potent and, on another hand, it is practically limited. Speaking politically, the declaration can shape international perception, influence investment confidence, and even trigger diplomatic isolation if unaddressed. In practice, however, the United States cannot unilaterally dictate Nigeria’s internal affairs. Its influence is largely moral, symbolic, and economic. The real potency lies in how Nigeria’s leadership responds – whether through defensive rhetoric or through genuine reform that restores security, accountability, and human rights protection. Our response determines whether the statement remains a temporary diplomatic friction or evolves into a deeper foreign policy crisis.
Hasn’t Trump acted beyond his power?
From an average American standpoint, he is acting within the discretionary powers and space available to the U.S. Executive under its human rights and foreign policy laws. However, in diplomatic etiquette, Trump’s public statement could stigmatize Nigeria, another sovereign nation. While the U. S. is entitled to its moral voice, such declarations should ideally be rooted in balanced intelligence and dialogue, not unilateral judgment.
How should President Bola Tinubu react to President Trump’s threat?
President Tinubu should respond with measured diplomacy and not with emotion. This is a moment for strategic communication and internal introspection. Tinubu should reaffirm Nigeria’s commitment to protecting all citizens and improving national security, while firmly defending our sovereignty and rejecting any mischaracterization or misrepresentation of the situation. A diplomatic delegation could engage Washington to clarify misunderstandings and present verifiable data on government actions. Most importantly, Tinubu must back his diplomacy with domestic credibility through justice reforms, stronger rule of law, and equitable protection of all religious and ethnic groups. Charity begins at home, and by extension, moral authority begins at home.
Has the UN a role to play on this issue?
Yes, but a limited one. The United Nations can serve as a platform for dialogue, fact-finding, and humanitarian coordination. Nigeria can invite the UN or its agencies, such as the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to independently assess conditions and help separate fact from political exaggeration. Such transparency would strengthen Nigeria’s global standing. The UN’s role should be to support peace-building and capacity strengthening, not to interfere in our internal governance. Still, Nigeria must first demonstrate that it values every life and that it is willing to protect its citizens without bias or delay. Nigeria stands at a crossroads. The world is watching how we treat our people, not how loudly we reject criticism. As a nation, we must rise above political sentiment and religious polarization to restore security, justice, and dignity for all Nigerians. Only then will our sovereignty command the respect it deserves.
Published on November 8, 2025
Leave a Reply