Tony Nnadi’s NINAS movement uses stark language to frame Nigeria’s crisis. In its January 21, 2026 statement, NINAS argued that the country is at a crossroads. The options are to either continue to “sacrifice” its people under the current “caliphate-imposed” unitary constitution or to overhaul the system altogether.
This report examines those claims against the backdrop of recent U.S. actions (like the Country of Particular Concern designation) and the broader security context. We also preview upcoming parts of this series, including responses from Abuja and regional stakeholders.
US Pressure: CPC Listing and Military Warnings
Late 2025 saw a marked escalation in US policy toward Nigeria. In October, President Donald Trump redesignated Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) under international religious freedom law.
This action – reportedly spurred by media reports of attacks on Christians – came with sharp warnings. Trump urged the US military to prepare for “action” against insurgents targeting religious communities. By November, US press reported Washington was weighing sanctions. They also reported on possible strikes to pressure Abuja.
In response, the two governments quickly set up a joint working group to tackle terrorism and religious violence. National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu stressed Nigeria treats sectarian attacks “as an attack on the Nigerian state” and vowed protection for all faiths.
These steps indicate the US is taking Nigeria’s violence seriously, but—as some analysts caution—without formally endorsing any breakup plan.
The Scale of the Violence
Independent data confirm a severe security crisis. A 2025 report by the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa found that 66,656 people died in Nigeria (Oct 2019–Sept 2024). This includes 36,056 civilians. Nearly half of those civilian deaths (47%) were attributed to Fulani militias.
Christian communities have suffered disproportionately: in affected areas, 2.4 Christians were killed for every Muslim (relative to population), with Christians 5.2 times more likely to be targeted than Muslims.
The conflict has displaced over 3.4 million Nigerians by end-2024 . Meanwhile Boko Haram/ISWAP insurgents remain active in the North, killing roughly 1,400 people in 2024 alone.
Nigeria is listed by analysts as one of the world’s most conflict-affected countries. This serves as a grim backdrop to any US policy debate.
NINAS’s “Union Reconfiguration” Proposition
NINAS contends the root problem is Nigeria’s constitution. The group cites its 2020 “Constitutional Force Majeure” declaration. It describes the violence as a “Fulani conquest invasion.” This is said to be aided by the 1999 constitution.
They allege the constitution concentrates power in ways that facilitate ethnic and religious conflict. To address this issue, NINAS has introduced a five-point reform plan. It refers to this plan as the “only viable pathway” to end the killings. Key elements include:
Acknowledging the 1999 Constitution as the root cause: The Nigerian government must admit its “unitary Constitution” enables insecurity.
Decommissioning that Constitution: Authorities should commit to “wholesale decommissioning and reconfiguration” of the current charter.
Halting elections under the old order: Preparation for the 2027 national polls (on the 1999 Constitution) should be suspended.
Two-stage transitioning: Nigeria’s peoples would first draft and ratify regional constitutions by referendum. Then they would renegotiate a new federal compact through a national plebiscite.
Time-bound oversight: An empowered multi-regional committee (analogue to South Africa’s CODESA) would manage this 12–18 month transition .
The aim, NINAS says, is to “extinguish the source of [the] deep-seated problems” – i.e. break the “Caliphate-imposed” system and give self-determination to Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities.
Supporters of this view point to Nigeria’s history of post-colonial constitutional change and the Sokoto Caliphate’s legacy in the North. They see parallels to South Africa’s 1990–94 transition from apartheid as a peaceful blueprint.
Criticisms and Counterpoints
Critics argue NINAS’s framing is one-sided. Many observers emphasise that all Nigerians – Christians and Muslims alike – suffer from the violence.
A 2025 Atlantic Council analysis notes “fears of a genocide against Nigeria’s Christian population are unfounded” and highlights that insurgent groups routinely kill Muslims as well.
U.S. officials like Massad Boulos have similarly pointed out that terrorism in Nigeria crosses religious lines. Nigerian leaders, for their part, have emphasised unity.
Ribadu’s working-group update highlighted “tangible operational gains” and described religious killings as a shared security threat.
Former U.S. diplomat John Campbell reminds us that official American policy has long “been to support a united Nigeria.” He warns against fragmentation.
Atlantic Council experts also caution that heavy U.S. pressure may backfire. Military threats could push Abuja closer to Russia and China for security assistance.
In summary, while acknowledging severe unrest, these voices urge engagement and reforms within the union rather than immediate secession.
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
