In January 2026, NINAS convenor Tony Nnadi warned that the United States is considering significant actions. These range from listing Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) to even military strikes. They may also provide tacit support for a breakup. These measures aim to halt what he calls the “widespread ethnoreligious killings” plaguing the country.
Nnadi argues these crises originate from Nigeria’s over-centralised 1999 Constitution. These crises include a southward “Fulani Conquest Invasion”, the spread of Sharia law, and feudal abuses.
He highlights NINAS’s Five-Point Union Reconfiguration Proposition. This is from a Dec 2020 “constitutional force majeure” declaration. He views it as the only viable remedy.
This report examines his claims and the wider context: staggering violence statistics, US policy moves, and Nigeria’s decades-old constitutional debate.
US Pressure and the Religious Violence Debate
Internationally, Nigeria has become synonymous with sectarian slaughter. In late 2025 President Trump publicly threatened “fast” military action if Nigeria did not end attacks on Christians.
By December 2025, the US even launched coordinated air strikes on jihadist camps in north-western Nigeria, with US Defense officials citing the need to stop the “slaughtering of Christians”.
Within weeks, the State Department re-designated Nigeria as a CPC for “severe violations of religious freedom”.
Even conservative US legislators declared that mass atrocities in Nigeria – “mass murder, rape, kidnappings… targeting mostly Nigerian Christians and non-Fulani moderate Muslims” – appear to be part of a “Fulani-controlled empire” strategy.
A 2025 US House resolution cited Open Doors data. The data showed that Nigeria accounted for 89% of worldwide Christian martyrs. It also noted that some 18,000 churches had been destroyed in recent decades.
Crucial numbers back up the urgency. Humanitarian trackers report that thousands have died or been abducted in 2021 alone.
For example, a Nigeria security survey tallied over 8,000 killed from January to September 2021. It also reported 4,200 abducted during the same period. Intersociety, a Christian NGO, reported 4,400 Christians killed by mid-2021.
Over the past 14 years, one NGO report estimates 52,000+ Christians murdered for their faith (and tens of thousands of Muslims), with millions more driven from homes.
Approximately 5–8 million people are internally displaced, and 50 million (mostly in the North) live under constant threat. These figures support NINAS’s claim. They indicate that violence has reached “genocidal” levels. This situation is a campaign of terror far exceeding everyday crime or pastoral clashes.
Yet, mainstream analyses differ on motives. Reuters and other outlets note that groups like Boko Haram and bandits – largely active in Muslim-majority regions – have killed thousands (mostly Muslims) over 15 years.
The Nigerian government officially denies any “Christian genocide”. It argues terrorism is indiscriminate.
In Congress, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended CPC redesignation (2021–24) and said Washington should pressure Nigeria to protect all faiths. But President Trump and some allies viewed the Middle Belt violence through a sectarian lens, prompting his threats and sanctions.
Notably, viral claims about US plans to “break up Nigeria” have surfaced online. In January 2026 a Facebook clip misquoted Rep. Riley Moore (WV) as urging Trump to partition Nigeria to protect Christians.
Fact-checkers (Dubawa) debunked this. Moore claimed to have briefed the White House on “policy options” to aid Nigerian Christians. He called Nigeria “the most dangerous country globally for Christians”.
In other words, while some US voices contemplate even dividing Nigeria, there is no formal plan to impose secession. Still, the mere spread of such rumours shows deep external concern. Nnadi uses them to underline his point that Nigeria’s system is failing its people.
The Fulani Factor and Constitutional Fault Lines
Central to Nnadi’s argument is the role of ethnic and regional power. He describes the violence as a “Fulani Conquest Invasion” – well-armed militias (nominally herdsmen) sweeping southward into predominantly Christian areas.
In NINAS’s narrative, these are not random criminals but ideological militants tracing their lineage to the 19th‑century Sokoto Caliphate. The US House resolution even likened modern Fulani militant activity to a revival of that historical empire.
Indeed, traditional herder-farmer conflicts have intensified into a genocidal enforcement of grazing rights through jihadist raids. NINAS’s research claims infiltrated arms, collusion by security forces, and a strategy to “eradicate” non-Fulani communities.
Underlying this, Nnadi says, is Nigeria’s unitary constitution – a legacy of military rule that centralises everything in Abuja. Critics note the 1999 Constitution devotes 68 exclusive powers to the federal government.
In practice, Abuja controls land, natural resources, police and security, education, infrastructure, etc., with states able to legislate on very little.
By contrast, devolved federations (like the US, or even Nigeria’s 1963 constitution) would allow regional autonomy on many issues. This centralisation is, Nnadi argues, the “engine” driving the conflict.
He calls the 1999 charter a “Caliphate-imposed Unitary Constitution” that leaves local peoples defenceless. (Even Nigeria’s Constitution allows Sharia courts in 12 northern states alongside secular law, highlighting regional legal divides.)
For supporters of Nigeria’s unity, NINAS’s portrayal is stark. The message reflects the old slogan. Either sacrifice citizens to save Nigeria, or sacrifice Nigeria to save citizens (as the LNC poster above dramatised).
Whether one agrees, the historical fact is that Nigeria’s tangled federalism has long been contentious. The country nearly collapsed with Biafra’s secession (1967–70) and has endured coups (1966, 1976, 1983).
Each post-independence constitution has swung between decentralisation and centralisation. NINAS believes the pendulum swung too far. Our research finds that under Buhari and beyond, each election simply “renews” the 1999 Constitution’s legitimacy. This situation perpetuates grievances.
The Guardian quoted NINAS in 2022. They said that the toxic 1999 Constitution is the source of the failures of the country. It causes the miseries of Nigerians, including the widespread killings. Proceeding to elections under this charter, they warned, would only “prolong the misery”.
NINAS’s Five-Point Roadmap
Rather than general condemnation, NINAS offers a concrete alternative. Its “Five-Point Union Reconfiguration Proposition” has been public since Dec 2020. The core idea: scrap the existing constitution and hold a structured, two-stage re-federation. The steps NINAS outlines (condensed) are:
Suspend Elections under the 1999 Constitution. Cancel or postpone any general polls (e.g. 2023/2027) under the current charter, which NINAS calls “fraudulent”.
Stage 1 – Regional Constitutions. Let each region (or “constituent people”) draft its preferred constitution, reflecting local choices on governance, culture, and religion.
Stage 2 – New Federal Pact. Once regional constitutions are ratified by referendums, negotiate a fresh federation agreement from scratch. This step effectively dissolves the old federal union. It results in forming a new one.
Time-bound Process (18 months). Enforce a strict timeline (no more than a year and a half) with interim governance. A joint multi-regional council (akin to South Africa’s 1990s CODESA talks) would guide the transition.
Decommission the 1999 Constitution. At the end, the old constitution is formally revoked. The new regional constitutions and federal charter (all approved by referenda) replace it.
In essence, NINAS wants a guided “reset” of Nigeria’s union. In writing, Nnadi even compares this to South Africa’s dismantling of apartheid in 1990–94.
He stresses that energy now spent on elections should be redirected to this effort. If this happens, Nigeria could “come out of this hole of denial.” It could also regain initiative.
The logic is that a legitimate new federation could finally address the grievances fueling violence. It should be born of referenda and agreements. It must not be imposed by elites.
Indeed, the NINAS team in 2019 briefed US officials on precisely this pathway. The team credits this campaign with the March 2020 CPC listing.
In his January 2026 remarks, Nnadi framed these ideas as the needed “remediation pathway” for Nigeria. At the height of international concern, he noted that NINAS had already been canvassing Washington DC. They were seeking solutions to the Middle Belt killings.
In those meetings, Nnadi pushed a critical point. He emphasized that unless Nigeria changes course, external actors would force change on her. These actors would do so citing human rights.
US policy is now pressing. Congress is even debating why Nigeria skipped CPC status for four years. He urges Nigerians to adopt the NINAS roadmap. They should do this before harsher measures, like military action or sanctions, arrive.
Comparative and Historical Perspective
Nigeria’s predicament is not unique in world history, though its scale is vast. Nigeria has over 200 million people and roughly 250 ethnic groups. It is Africa’s largest country. It is even bigger than the joined populations of some continental regions.
Yet it remains one political union. By contrast, Ethiopia (110M people) has 11 semi-autonomous states. Even these states were reluctant to use their constitutional right to secede.
Nigeria, by contrast, has no legal secession clause. Its only breakaway success story was the Biafran war, which collapsed. Still, decades of tension (Nigerian Civil War, repeated coups) show that the old unitary model is unstable.
Other federations have solved such crises through negotiation. South Africa’s example is instructive – it rewrote everything in the early 1990s to merge a racially divided country.
Even Canada has occasionally allowed referenda (e.g. Quebec) to address regional demands short of split.
NINAS argues Nigeria’s own leaders have never dared a similarly honest dialogue. Past constitutional reviews (like 2014) fizzled without changing power structure.
The NINAS plan expressly offloads authority to regions. Supporters say this move would undercut the appeal of ethnic militias.
If states could field their own security forces, many analysts believe they would be more effective. Unlike today’s all-federal police, local communities would defend themselves more effectively. NINAS’s vision essentially federalises security, economy and culture – reversing centralisation.
Critics (and many Nigerians) worry that suspending elections is risky. But NINAS counters that elections under the 1999 rules simply cement the status quo. It notes that the winner must always swear by the existing constitution. This effectively entrenches a faulty system.
In their view, stopping the next “voyage” to election is necessary. They believe focusing on reconstruction is the only way to cut off the “Caliphate” project. This can be achieved by removing its constitutional arsenal. (As Nnadi bluntly puts it: continuing under the current union means “sacrificing our people to save Nigeria”; changing the union might “save our people”.)
Outlook: Reform or Fallout?
Nigeria’s government has publicly rejected any suggestion of external meddling or partition. It insists it is battling terrorism on all fronts.
President Tinubu has downplayed Christian-specific claims, framing violence as a national scourge. His advisers say Nigeria will welcome any helpful US support so long as sovereignty is respected.
Indeed, the Nigerian Foreign Ministry announced the US-led strikes were conducted in coordination with Abuja. The strikes were ostensibly to target ISIS elements.
Yet the pressure from abroad remains intense. US law-makers have even proposed legislation to condition aid on protecting religious groups.
The State Department’s position is echoed in Congress and think-tanks (CSIS, USCIRF). They insist that Nigeria’s leaders must “take responsibility” for the deaths. Additionally, they must ensure religious freedoms are upheld.
For many Nigerians, these signals – armed drones overhead, diplomatic rebukes – are a shock to sovereignty. Nnadi and NINAS interpret them as a final warning. They believe that unless Nigeria fixes its constitution, outside forces might effectively enforce solutions. Some of these solutions might be unwelcome.
This feature report has examined Tony Nnadi’s advocacy in context. He speaks with the voice of a veteran campaigner. After 40 years in Nigerian politics and constitutional debates, he frames Washington’s actions as vindicating his long-held warnings.
While some may dispute his conclusions or fear break-up, the facts of insecurity and systemic dysfunction are beyond dispute.
As Nigeria enters another election year, a core question remains. Will Nigerians take the risk of a grand constitutional reset first? Alternatively, will events force it from the outside? NINAS insists the choice must be Nigeria’s to make, under its own terms.
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
