Headlines
Alleged Christian Genocide: US Lawmakers Fault Tinubu’s Govt
United States of America lawmakers have sharply contradicted the Nigerian government’s position on the ongoing massacres in the country, describing the violence as “escalating,” “targeted,” and overwhelmingly directed at Christians during a rare joint congressional briefing on Tuesday.
The closed-door session – convened by House Appropriations, Vice Chair Mario Díaz-Balart, as part of a Trump-ordered investigation – examined recent killings and what Congress calls Abuja’s “deeply inadequate” response.
President Trump has asked lawmakers, led by Reps. Riley Moore and Tom Cole, to compile a report on persecution of Nigerian Christians and has even floated the possibility of U.S. military action against Islamist groups responsible for the attacks.
At the briefing, Vicky Hartzler, chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, warned that “religious freedom [is] under siege” in Nigeria, citing mass abductions of schoolchildren and assaults in which “radical Muslims kill entire Christian villages [and] burn churches.” She said abuses were “rampant” and “violent,” claiming Christians are targeted “at a 2.2 to 1 rate” compared with Muslims.
While acknowledging Nigeria’s recent move to reassign 100,000 police officers from VIP protection, Hartzler said the country is entering a “coordinated and deeply troubling period of escalated violence.” She urged targeted sanctions, visa bans, asset freezes and tighter conditions on U.S. aid, insisting Abuja must retake villages seized from Christian communities so displaced widows and children can return home.
The strongest rebuke came from Dr. Ebenezer Obadare of the Council on Foreign Relations, who dismissed Abuja’s narrative that the killings are not religiously motivated. He called the idea that extremists attack Muslims and Christians equally a “myth,” stressing the groups operate “for one reason and one reason only: religion.” Higher Muslim casualty figures, he argued, reflect geography, not equal targeting.
Obadare described Boko Haram as fundamentally anti-democratic and accused the Nigerian military of being “too corrupt and incompetent” to defeat jihadist networks without external pressure. He urged Washington to push Nigeria to disband armed religious militias, confront security-sector corruption and respond swiftly to early warnings.
Sean Nelson of ADF International called Nigeria “the deadliest country in the world for Christians,” claiming more Christians are killed there than in all other countries combined and at a rate “five times” higher than Muslims when adjusted for population. He said extremists also kill Muslims who reject violent ideologies, undermining Abuja’s argument that the crisis is driven mainly by crime or communal disputes.
He pressed for tighter oversight on U.S. aid, recommending that some assistance be routed through faith-based groups to avoid corruption. Without “transparency and outside pressure,” he said, “nothing changes.”
Díaz-Balart criticised the Biden administration’s reversal of Trump’s designation of Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” in 2021, saying the decision had “clearly deadly consequences.” Lawmakers from the Appropriations, Foreign Affairs and Financial Services committees signaled further oversight actions as they prepare the Trump-directed report.
Hartzler pointed to recent comments by Nigeria’s Speaker of the House acknowledging a “coordinated and deeply troubling period of escalated violence,” calling it a rare moment of candor. She also welcomed the redeployment of police officers as “a promising start after years of neglect.”
But she stressed that these gestures are far from sufficient, insisting the Nigerian government must demonstrate a real commitment to “quell injustice,” act swiftly on early warnings, and embrace transparency.
The Nigerian Embassy did not immediately respond to a request for comment, according to source.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
