Two related developments have upended Nigeria’s political discourse in early 2026. The U.S. has increased pressure on Abuja over religious violence. This strengthens Nigeria’s status as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC). The Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination (NINAS) has reaffirmed its call to “crash” the 1999 constitution. They want to hold new regional referendums and thereby dissolve the federation.
Civil society and Nigerian leaders have reacted warily. Some ethnic activists call for more devolution. However, President Bola Tinubu and leaders of the ruling party have openly opposed any division of the nation.
On the CPC issue, Nigerian organisations and the general population have diverse opinions. While many applaud American attempts to suppress militias, others are concerned that innocent citizens would be subject to further sanctions.
We detail how the Nigerian government, opposition, and social actors have responded to NINAS’s proposals. We also cover the post-designation “crackdown.” Additionally, we outline Washington’s latest signals on Nigeria policy.
Government and Political Leadership
Presidential stance – Unity and reform. President Tinubu has consistently emphasised national unity. In April 2024 he warned that anyone “threatening Nigeria’s sovereignty” would “have a price to pay”.
He received Yoruba leaders (Afenifere) who urged greater devolution. He reaffirmed he is “irrevocably committed to the unity of Nigeria and constitutional democracy”.
Tinubu also publicly rejected the U.S. CPC label as a distortion. In November 2025, he insisted Nigeria “stands firmly as a democracy governed by constitutional guarantees of religious liberty.” He stated that branding Nigeria as religiously intolerant “does not reflect our national reality.”
He pledged ongoing engagement with Christian and Muslim communities alike, and cooperation with international partners on security.
Ruling party and governors. The All Progressives Congress (APC) government has taken a defensive but pragmatic line. Official statements (e.g. from Information Minister Mohammed Idris) stress Nigeria’s “commitment to protecting lives and restoring security” after the U.S. CPC designation.
The administration announced the formation of a Nigeria–U.S. joint working group on security. It emphasized that Nigeria is cooperating closely with Washington. For example, Nigeria’s NSA Nuhu Ribadu met U.S. envoys in Abuja to coordinate counterinsurgency operations.
Tinubu also framed reforms in strictly domestic terms. In private meetings, he has discussed constitutional amendments to devolve powers, which are endorsed by Yoruba elders. He did not consider any notion of outright secession.
Opposition and regional leaders. Mainstream opposition parties (e.g. PDP) and national lawmakers have mostly sidestepped NINAS’s independence narrative.
No major party has officially endorsed breaking up the country. Their calls for change focus on restructuring under the 1999 framework.
For example, even many Yoruba and Igbo pro-autonomy figures refrain from openly courting NINAS. However, some regional leaders echo NINAS’s diagnosis of the constitution’s flaws.
In April 2024, Afenifere elder Oba Olu Falae commended Tinubu’s economic agenda. He urged that a “constitutional amendment to devolve more powers to the states” was urgently needed.
This reflects a common civil-society view: many ethnic and pro-democracy activists call for sweeping federalist reforms, not secession.
Civil society think tanks and unions have long pressed for a citizen-driven constitutional conference to empower states and local governments.
In short, the substance of NINAS’s critique (over-centralisation, insecurity) is acknowledged, but most leaders favor internal reform over outright break-up.
Civil Society and Public Opinion
Ethnic and regional activists. Among Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities, responses are mixed. Yoruba groups remain divided. Some fringe agitators, like Banji Akintoye’s Ilana Omo Oodua, align with NINAS’s firm stance. However, more moderate Yoruba voices advocate dialogue.
After Tinubu’s Afenifere meeting, Yoruba traditionalists offered guarded support for devolution while emphasising unity.
Igbo opinion has similarly been ambivalent. Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s old Movement for Biafra leaders have not embraced NINAS’s multi-regional union dissolution. They are focusing instead on the release of detained IPOB leader Nnamdi Kanu.
In general, few prominent civil society figures outside NINAS publicly take its union reconfiguration proposals seriously. Most Nigerians and NGOs instead call for broader dialogue.
For example, pro-democracy and academic circles have called for an inclusive “constitutional reform conference.” This would be a citizen-led assembly to amend the constitution. They prefer this approach over any unilateral “jailbreak”.
Religious and community voices. The CPC designation and related U.S. actions have prompted reaction from Nigerian religious communities and activists.
Broadly, Christian leaders welcomed greater pressure on Islamist militants, while cautioning against external threats of military intervention.
The outspoken former senator Shehu Sani (a Muslim but vocal on civil rights) noted that U.S. visa bans and sanctions “should not be blamed” but warned the impact on ordinary Nigerians must be managed.
He observed that many visa-restricted officials have long cultivated anti-U.S. stances, so the sanctions were overdue, even if blunt. On the other hand, Christian commentators and students have lauded U.S. moves.
A Nigerian university student told local media that laws to ban visas for “foreign violators of religious freedom” were “long overdue.” The student noted the urgency given the thousands killed in recent years.
In sum, civil society opinion tends to support stronger action against militant violence. However, there is worry over national sovereignty and innocent civilians.
U.S. Signals and Policy Shifts
Joint U.S.–Nigeria cooperation. On the diplomatic front, Washington has alternated pressure with partnership. Following Trump’s CPC redesignation of Nigeria, State Department officials and Nigerian authorities established a high-level working group.
In January 2026 the two sides met in Abuja – co-chaired by Nigeria’s NSA Ribadu and U.S. Under Secretary Allison Hooker – to follow up on religious freedom and security commitments.
The Nigerian Ministry of Information hailed the new arrangements as evidence of an “active, serious” partnership yielding real results.
Even U.S. envoys acknowledge Nigeria’s engagement: at a November 2025 congressional hearing, State Dept. official Jonathan Pratt reported that the Nigerian government had “taken the designation very seriously.” They sent a senior delegation to Washington and Abuja. They also cooperated on an action plan.
Representative Riley Moore is the chair of the House Nigeria Caucus. He similarly praised Abuja’s partnership. He called the working group “an encouraging and necessary step.” This is in jointly combating terrorism and protecting religious freedom.
Moore said Nigeria has a “once-in-a-lifetime chance” to strengthen ties with the U.S. Nigeria must address security issues. This sentiment is echoed in official statements that the bilateral security relationship is now “focused on outcomes that matter to Nigerians”.
Congressional action. On Capitol Hill, pressure on Nigeria’s leadership has intensified. In January 2026, Senate Republicans introduced the “Banning Perpetrators of Religious Persecution Act.” The effort was led by Senator Ted Budd (NC). It amends U.S. immigration law. This bars visas for anyone who has “directed, authorised, significantly supported, participated in, or carried out” violations of religious freedom abroad.
Budd explicitly cited Nigeria’s spike in Christian murders. The bill won wide co-sponsorship (including Tom Cotton, James Lankford, Ted Cruz, etc.), reflecting bipartisan concern over Nigeria’s crisis.
Ahead of the bill’s introduction, Budd and colleagues had urged the Trump administration to re-designate Nigeria as a CPC. They noted that it had been placed back on the list in late 2025.
In the House, a U.S. commission hearing in November 2025 split along lines: Republicans like Chairman Chris Smith argued the attacks on Christians constituted “genocide,” while some Democrats (e.g. Rep. Sara Jacobs) warned that framing it purely as a religious war risked escalating ethnic tensions.
Overall, Congress is signaling tougher sanctions. Proponents openly advocate visa bans and other measures under the International Religious Freedom Act. They have even discussed cutting or conditioning aid if Abuja fails to act.
Executive branch posture. President Trump initially used tough rhetoric. He threatened “guns-a-blazing” strikes if Nigeria didn’t act. However, his December 2025 actions combined force with diplomacy.
He ordered targeted military strikes against extremist camps on Christmas Day 2025, claiming to retaliate for attacks on Christians.
More quietly, U.S. officials conveyed to Nigeria that ongoing security assistance (e.g. arms and intelligence cooperation) could continue as long as Abuja demonstrates progress.
The newly created working group reflects a quid pro quo: Nigeria gains security materiel and training, while the U.S. demands transparent measures to protect civilians of all faiths.
In Congress, staff and faith-based advocates (like Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute) expect the Administration to impose visa sanctions on Nigerian officials. These officials are considered “complicit in atrocities.” They also expect the Administration to aid community security initiatives.
Indeed, former Trump liaison in Nigeria, Rep. Riley Moore, announced he would soon brief the White House on “30 possible ways” the U.S. can partner with Nigeria to end the violence .
Trends Since January 2026
Since the start of 2026, these dynamics have continued apace. Tinubu’s government has kept up its narrative of partnership: its January 22 press release with the State Department highlighted joint intelligence ops (e.g. Operation Hadin Kai) and pledged to finish paying for American-supplied drones and helicopters.
At the same time, Abuja is cautious about any perception of condoning foreign meddling. The Information Minister still insists campaigns to drive Christians out are “misinformation.” He blames “terrorists,” not the state.
In public comments, Nigerian diplomats emphasise that religious freedom is guaranteed by law. They assert that the country is acting “decisively” on all insurgencies.
On the opposition side, voices like Senator Sani’s and student activists’ reflect a constituency that supports the U.S. measures but also fears national backlash.
Nigerian newspapers report growing awareness that ordinary citizens (for example, those on pilgrimage) could be caught up in U.S. visa bans – an issue that critics argue Abuja’s liaison team must explain to Washington.
Throughout these debates, historical context looms large: many Nigerians note that the U.S. has alternately pressured Nigeria on human rights and yet also sought to keep it politically intact (unlike past U.S. interventions in the Balkans or Ethiopia, for instance).
For now, Tinubu’s government has no appetite to unravel the federation; instead, it is proposing piecemeal reforms (state police, fiscal federalism, etc.) within the constitution.
Ethnic groups from the Niger Delta to the Middle Belt have increased their demands. They want their security concerns to be addressed. This could either undercut or co-opt NINAS’s narrative of illegitimacy.
Key Takeaways (by segment):
Federal government: Reasserts commitment to Nigeria’s unity and rejects constitutional “break-up.” Tinubu underlines religious tolerance and welcomes U.S. support, while warning separatists (especially in the Southwest) against endangering sovereignty.
The administration touts closer U.S. security cooperation as evidence of shared goals. Civil society and ethnic leaders: Largely favour reform over dissolution.
Traditional Yoruba leaders support greater devolution. They favor a “constitutional amendment… to devolve more powers to the states.” However, they remain allied to the federal project.
Similarly, Igbo and other regional movements have not embraced NINAS’s union-shutdown approach. Think tanks and unions advocate a citizen-driven constitutional conference to address grievances, not unilateral secession.
Public opinion: Many Nigerians – including activists, journalists and students – back U.S. measures against militia leaders, seeing foreign pressure as overdue.
There is anxiety about broad sanctions. Ex-senator Sani warned that broad visa bans could catch innocent Nigerians. These individuals could be “caught up in this.”
Faith-based communities are especially vocal. Christian leaders generally applaud attention to their plight, while also urging dialogue. Muslim and centrist voices urge Abuja to improve security for all faiths, echoing Tinubu’s official line.
U.S. signals: Washington has moved from symbolic CPC designation to concrete steps. Congress has been active: senators and representatives have introduced sanction bills and held hearings calling for targeted visa restrictions.
At the same time, U.S. policymakers stress partnership. Recent Pentagon briefings highlight this effort. State Department meetings (the US–Nigeria Working Group) emphasize capacity-building for Nigeria’s armed forces.
Policymakers like Rep. Moore frame U.S. action as aligned with Nigerian interests – from combating Boko Haram to protecting farmers in the Middle Belt.
In sum, since January 2026, Nigerian actors have reacted to NINAS’s union-reset proposals with caution. They responded to Washington’s CPC-driven pressure with pragmatism.
The prevailing refrain in Abuja is that Nigeria’s problems will be solved through stronger democracy. Security cooperation is also seen as a solution. Not secession. NINAS remains influential in activist circles but has yet to sway mainstream opinion.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has signaled it will continue pressing Nigeria. It will do so through incentives like military aid and joint ops. It will also use sticks like Congressional sanctions bills and visa bans. This will continue until it sees measurable protection of vulnerable communities.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
