On 20 October 2025 a highly charged meeting at the Christian Association of Nigeria secretariat in Abuja has reopened a national and international debate over whether violence against Christians in Nigeria amounts to genocide. The meeting between CAN leaders and President Bola Tinubu’s media aide, Barrister Daniel Bwala, was followed by competing official versions of what was said.
CAN insists its position that parts of the violence amount to a systematic campaign against Christian communities remains unchanged. The Presidency insists there is no genocide. It challenges the evidential basis of the statistics being used. The challenge particularly targets a report by the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa. Both sides now claim the moral high ground.
This report examines the meeting and the data. It also examines the law and the politics. The report delves into the consequences for victims, the state, and Nigeria’s foreign relations. The report draws heavily on Atlantic Post’s recent investigative dossier. It also incorporates primary reports by ORFA, federal and international reviews, and contemporary media reporting.
The incident and the clash of narratives
On Monday 20 October 2025 Barrister Daniel Bwala, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Policy Communication, visited CAN’s Secretariat at the National Christian Centre in Abuja. Within hours a Presidency statement titled “Presidency Debunks Western Christian Genocide Narrative in Dialogue with CAN Leadership” circulated. That statement was widely read as saying CAN had described the allegation of a Christian genocide as “so-called” and thereby had downplayed the suffering of Christian communities. CAN promptly issued its own clarification.
Archbishop Daniel Okoh and CAN’s media team stated that the Presidency’s version was false. They said the meeting was recorded. CAN never dismissed or trivialised the killings. CAN said it had presented verified data showing consistent, targeted attacks on Christian communities and demanded urgent government action.
In broadcast interviews after the meeting Daniel Bwala doubled down. On Arise TV and in public posts he insisted on several points. He stated that the ORFA data is methodologically flawed. He argued that the time window in the ORFA study overlaps little with the Tinubu administration. He mentioned that the ORFA findings came from local media, NGOs, and unnamed partners. Thus, he believes these should not be used to label the situation a genocide.
He argued further that violence in Nigeria affects both Christians and Muslims. The legal threshold of genocide requires proof of intent to destroy a group in whole or part.
Within Nigeria reactions varied. The Sultan of Sokoto advised caution about the word genocide. The Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Hassan Kukah, also urged caution about its use.
The Sultan described the allegation as false and destabilising. Bishop Kukah warned that re-designation by foreign governments will damage fragile interfaith and reconciliation efforts. He even acknowledged violence against Christians.
Internationally, the controversy was provoked in large part by public denunciations from some US politicians. These denunciations came from commentators and accelerated the debate.
The evidence base: ORFA and other datasets
The Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa published a country report. It covers October 2019 to September 2023. The report documents killings and abductions. It also maps incidents by location and obvious religious affiliation of victims. ORFA’s dataset is crucial evidence. It supports claims that Christian communities have been disproportionately targeted in recent years.
The UK parliament research briefing has relied on ORFA figures. Other secondary analyses have also used these figures. They show tens of thousands of killings and abductions over multi-year periods.
ORFA states that its data derive from media reports, eyewitness testimony, NGO contributions, and other open sources. Incidents were coded for the religious background of victims where available.
Critics have long warned that such datasets, while valuable, have methodological weaknesses. Media based incident collection risks under-reporting in some areas and over-representation in others. Attribution of motive or intent from incident reports is perilous.
The academic literature on violent incident databases underlines that methodology matters deeply for interpretation. A recent methodological review of violent incident databases emphasises transparency of source choice, verification steps and coding rules.
Independent observers and research organisations produce different tallies with different scopes. Open Doors, ACN and other faith based organisations have produced high counts for Christian victims and churches destroyed.
Broader conflict datasets such as ACLED record incidents by geography and actors. They do not always assign a single religious motive to every attack. The result is that numeric tallies differ depending on definitions and methods. For many analysts the raw numbers are alarming; for lawyers assessing genocide they leave open the question of intent.
Law and the test for genocide
The legal definition of genocide is narrow and exacting. The 1948 Genocide Convention defines genocide through specific acts. These acts must be committed with intent to destroy, whether in whole or in part. The target must be a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group.
The convention lists five categories of acts that can constitute genocide, including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm and deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction.
Crucially the convention requires proof of specific intent to destroy a protected group. That intent is the most difficult element to prove in any alleged genocide.
Applying the legal test to Nigeria requires two linked assessments. First, are the acts alleged of a scale and pattern that correspond to the convention’s prohibited acts. Second, and more determinative, is whether there is evidence of intent to destroy Christians as a group.
Many of those documenting high casualty numbers argue that the steady pattern of attacks on Christian villages has persisted for many years. These attacks on churches and clergy fit the first limb.
Many governments, scholars and commentators point out that proving state intent or a coordinated plan by non-state actors to eradicate Christians has not been convincingly demonstrated in publicly available evidence. In practice national prosecutions or an international inquiry would be the forum where evidence of intent might be rigorously tested.
Where the data and the law diverge
This is the heart of the current fight. CAN and victim groups are pointing to patterns of killings, deliberate attacks on worship sites, abductions of clergy and population displacement that they say add up to sustained persecution of Christian communities.
They point to ORFA and complementary accounts to argue the violence is neither random nor equally distributed. CAN told the Presidency it had presented ORFA data and other verified sources during the meeting.
The Presidency and its advisers counter that many of the datasets rely on media aggregation. Thus, they are poor substitutes for rigorous criminal evidence. They also argue that the time-series cited is only partially overlapping with the Tinubu administration.
The Presidency has repeatedly pointed out that jihadist and criminal actors have attacked Muslims as well as Christians. A proportional read of victims across different contexts does not automatically equate to genocidal intent.
The Presidency framed part of the debate as a warning. It cautioned against politically motivated foreign narratives. The Presidency urged that policy decisions be driven by verified legal criteria rather than emotive labels.
Independent journalists and analysts make a related point. Large numeric counts matter to policy but do not themselves satisfy the international legal test of genocidal intent.
Conversely, critics argue that the legal threshold should not serve as a rhetorical shield. It should not be used to deny or minimise systematic campaigns of violence that fall short of the strict legal definition. These campaigns nonetheless amount to grave crimes. They need urgent governmental or international redress.
Historical context and state responsibility
The current controversy can’t be understood without history. The last decade saw the escalation of violence in the Middle Belt and north. Under President Muhammadu Buhari between 2015 and 2023 violence linked to Fulani militia, bandits and jihadists surged in many states. Human rights groups criticised the Buhari administration for inaction and for appointments and policies some said compounded perceptions of bias.
The transition to President Tinubu in 2023 raised hopes among some Christian leaders that a new balance will emerge. Bishop Kukah has publicly acknowledged gestures of inclusion under Tinubu while cautioning that impunity and governance failures persist.
State responsibility takes two forms. First the obligation to protect citizens and to investigate and prosecute crimes irrespective of the perpetrators’ religion. Second the obligation to avoid language or conduct that fuels intercommunal tensions. CAN has accused the federal government of failing to protect Christian civilians in several hotspots. They have also accused it of selective enforcement in land and compensation disputes.
The Presidency says it has inherited a complex security landscape and is taking steps to restore order. Both claims have elements of truth; victims though measure performance by whether suspected perpetrators are arrested, prosecuted and punished. The absence of visible, consistent justice is at the root of many grievances.
The politics of international designation
The controversy acquired international flavour. This happened after several American politicians publicly called for Nigeria to be designated a Country of Particular Concern for severe violations of religious freedom. Additionally, some commentators used the word genocide in public fora. The US record on designation has shifted across administrations. The US congressional debate has started to frame humanitarian advocacy as a lever to change Nigerian policy.
The Nigerian government warns that external designations can have diplomatic and security consequences and impair local reconciliation efforts. Bishop Kukah and other interlocutors urged restraint and advocated for constructive engagement rather than punitive labelling.
For survivors and community leaders in the Middle Belt the international spotlight offers both protection and peril. Pressure from abroad can spur reform and resources. It can also harden domestic political positions and be interpreted by some as interference. The current moment shows how the domestic and international politics of memory, counting and naming can collide in ways that do real harm to the people on the ground.
What independent data and experts say
Scholars and methodological experts stress that transparent, reproducible databases are needed to form reliable trend lines. ORFA’s work has been used in UN and parliamentary briefings but ORFA itself acknowledges limitations and the need for corroboration. Publications from ACLED, the US State Department, IIRF and NGOs offer complementary perspectives and warn against simplistic readings.
Independent journalists have identified areas where ORFA data correspond with on-the-ground testimony, while also noting under-reporting in remote zones. The convergence of multiple sources on the fact of large-scale violence is strong. However, they diverge over motive, pattern attribution, and legal characterisation.
Victims, testimony and the human cost
Atlantic Post’s recent investigative piece gathered testimony from survivors across Benue, Plateau, Taraba, Kaduna and Adamawa. Those testimonies describe scorched villages, burned churches, seized farms and abducted schoolchildren. Survivors told of night raids that separated men from women, of clergy killed at dusk and of communities that feel abandoned after repeated attacks.
Those narratives must anchor any legal or political assessment. Numbers and legal categories matter to policy, but they must not eclipse the human suffering behind them.
Policy implications and recommendations
1. Independent investigation
A neutral and well-resourced inquiry should be set up. It needs to be independent and investigate patterns of attacks, chain of command, and state responses. It should have access to forensic evidence, witness testimony, and official records. This inquiry should be capable of testing allegations of systemic persecution. International partners can help without dictating outcomes.
2. Improve data and transparency
Government ministries, security agencies, and civil society should work together. They need to create a single open incidents database. This database should have a transparent approach. Existing databases like ORFA’s should be professionally audited for method and coverage. Clearer data will reduce the scope for politicised disputation.
3. Accountability and prosecutions
Where credible evidence exists of criminal responsibility by named individuals or units, vigorous prosecution is essential. A credible justice response would do more to heal communities than competing narratives.
4. Local protection and rehabilitation
Immediate protection measures for high-risk communities must be accelerated. There should be investment in local policing and community reconciliation programmes. This should be done with provincial and federal coordination. Land restitution and compensation programmes where abuse is proven should be urgently implemented.
5. Responsible public discourse
All stakeholders, including the Presidency, religious leaders, media, and foreign governments, must avoid inflammatory language. This language can harden identities. That said the avoidance of legal labels must not become an alibi for inaction. The balance between accuracy and urgency must guide public statements.
Concluding points
The October 2025 clash between CAN and the Presidency is more than a dispute about phrasing. It is a contest over evidence, law and responsibility in a country where violence has exacted a heavy human toll. Data collected by ORFA and others document sustained attacks that affect Christian communities. The legal question of genocide depends on intent. Intent is not a number. It can’t be established by casualty counts alone. Yet the narrowness of the legal definition can’t be allowed to hide the urgent need for protection, justice and accountability.
Both CAN and the Presidency have responsibilities. CAN must confirm its public claims are tightly evidenced and constructive. The Presidency must take visible, measurable action to protect all citizens and to prosecute perpetrators without fear or favour. International actors should support truth and justice while respecting Nigeria’s complex social fabric.
If Nigeria can design a credible, transparent and victim-centred approach to counting, investigating and prosecuting atrocities then the current dispute become an opportunity. If it fails, the politicisation of numbers will deepen grievance and prolong the suffering of the communities that matter most.
Atlantic Post’s investigation has sketched the contours of the problem. The next test is whether Nigeria’s institutions and leaders will deliver the remedy.
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
