Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern: Between Global Scrutiny and Domestic Responsibility

[John Onyeukwu]

Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern: Between Global Scrutiny and Domestic Responsibility

 America’s latest designation is both a warning and an opportunity for Nigeria to rebuild governance, rights protection, and global confidence.

 John Onyeukwu

(Published in Accountable Reform with John Onyeukwu on Sunday November 2, 2025)

When the President of the United States declared Nigeria a Country of Particular Concern (CPC), it reignited national debate about governance, human rights, and foreign policy. The designation, made under America’s International Religious Freedom Act, targets nations alleged to tolerate or commit severe violations of religious freedom. Yet, the deeper implications go far beyond religion; they touch on Nigeria’s democratic identity, its international reputation, and the enduring tension between sovereignty and global accountability.

For Nigerians, this is not uncharted territory. The country was previously listed and later delisted in 2021. The renewed inclusion, reportedly supported by a bill introduced by Senator Ted Cruz, has once again polarised opinion. Some welcome it as a necessary external pressure on a government perceived to be indifferent to rights and justice. Others condemn it as another example of America’s inconsistent moral policing, potentially harmful to ordinary Nigerians and national interests.

 *For supporters of the designation* , the CPC label serves as a much-needed reality check. They point to persistent incidents of sectarian violence, insecurity, and impunity for perpetrators. The argument is that Nigeria’s internal contradictions, politicised religion, weak security response, and tolerance for violations, cannot be wished away. In their view, external pressure might accelerate domestic reform.

 *For opponents* , however, this move reeks of selective morality. They caution that such designations, if misunderstood, can stigmatise Nigeria internationally, disrupt investment flows, and embolden stereotypes of a failed or intolerant state. Many recall America’s own inconsistencies, its silence on abuses by allies and its fluctuating moral standards depending on geopolitical interest. “Global justice cannot be unipolar,” one analyst notes, “and Nigeria must defend itself diplomatically, but also credibly.”

In response, the Nigerian government, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, swiftly rejected the designation as “not reflective of realities on the ground.” The statement reaffirmed that “the Federal Government of Nigeria will continue to defend all citizens, irrespective of race, creed, or religion.” It emphasised that Nigerians of diverse faiths have coexisted peacefully for generations, and that the government remains fully committed to inter-faith harmony, counter-terrorism, and inclusion.

Building on this, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu personally restated Nigeria’s democratic position and constitutional commitment to religious freedom:

“Nigeria stands firmly as a democracy governed by constitutional guarantees of religious liberty.

Since 2023, our administration has maintained an open and active engagement with Christian and Muslim leaders alike and continues to address security challenges which affect citizens across faiths and regions.

The characterisation of Nigeria as religiously intolerant does not reflect our national reality, nor does it take into consideration the consistent and sincere efforts of the government to safeguard freedom of religion and beliefs for all Nigerians.

Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so. Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it.

Our administration is committed to working with the United States government and the international community to deepen understanding and cooperation on protection of communities of all faiths.”

— *Bola Ahmed Tinubu, President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria* 

This presidential clarification is significant. It strikes a conciliatory tone, asserting sovereignty while keeping the door open for dialogue. It frames Nigeria not as a violator but as a partner in global peacebuilding and faith tolerance. From a diplomatic perspective, it was the right note to strike: firm, yet forward-looking.

While the President’s statement is strong and values-based, it also invites an honest question: Does Nigeria’s democratic reality align with this constitutional ideal?

The spirit of religious liberty, civic inclusion, and equal protection, enshrined in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, remains under strain. From attacks on places of worship in Plateau and Benue to insurgency in the North-East and inter-communal clashes elsewhere, the evidence shows a state struggling to maintain the rule of law and equal protection. These gaps do not necessarily mean institutional intent to persecute, but they reveal a failure of capacity, which is precisely what fuels international concern.

In truth, Nigeria’s dilemma is less about intolerance and more about institutional weakness. Security agencies are overstretched, judicial systems are slow, and early-warning mechanisms for conflict prevention are underdeveloped. These weaknesses distort the perception of deliberate negligence.

The gaps in Nigeria’s response to its current challenges reveal deep-seated institutional and governance weaknesses that must be addressed if the country is to rebuild both domestic and global confidence. At the heart of the problem lies weak state capacity, the inability to prevent or punish large-scale violence continues to erode public trust in government. A functioning democracy cannot depend solely on reactive security responses; it must invest in preventive, intelligence-driven systems capable of anticipating and mitigating threats before they escalate. Equally troubling is the persistent lack of accountability. Commissions of inquiry and investigative panels are often inaugurated after crises but rarely produce tangible outcomes or justice, thereby reinforcing a culture of impunity and fueling international skepticism about Nigeria’s commitment to the rule of law.

Compounding these institutional deficits are deeply polarised narratives. Religion, too often weaponised by local political actors, blurs the line between faith and governance, diverting attention from the underlying socioeconomic roots of conflict, poverty, exclusion, and weak governance structures. This politicisation of faith fractures national unity and complicates policy interventions. Finally, Nigeria suffers from a diplomatic deficit: its foreign policy apparatus must evolve from reflexive denial to proactive engagement. By presenting verifiable data, highlighting ongoing reforms, and sustaining evidence-based dialogue with international partners, Nigeria can better shape its global image and assert the credibility of its democratic and pluralist values.

The U.S. designation, however unsettling, can become a catalyst for systemic strengthening. Nigeria should seize this moment to demonstrate that it is not just a democracy in name, but in practice.

To move from rhetoric to measurable reform, Nigeria must take concrete institutional steps that reinforce both domestic credibility and international confidence. A key starting point is empowering the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) with prosecutorial authority and mandating annual public reporting on the state of human rights and religious freedom. This would signal a decisive shift from symbolic oversight to enforceable accountability. Equally vital is the creation of an Inter-Faith Commission to institutionalise structured dialogue between religious communities and document conflict-resolution mechanisms that can be replicated nationwide.

Transparency in security operations must also become non-negotiable. Introducing public accountability measures for military and police conduct in conflict zones would not only deter abuses but also strengthen public trust in state institutions. Judicial reform remains another critical pillar, ensuring that acts of violence are investigated and prosecuted swiftly and impartially, regardless of religion or region, would demonstrate the government’s commitment to equality before the law. Finally, Nigeria must strengthen its public diplomacy. Establishing a strategic communications unit within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dedicated to proactive engagement with international partners and the dissemination of verified data on human rights progress would help correct misconceptions and showcase genuine reforms.

The President’s statement underscores Nigeria’s pride as a sovereign democracy. But sovereignty, in today’s interconnected world, must coexist with accountability. America’s action is a test not only of Nigeria’s diplomatic agility but of its moral and institutional coherence.

The real task is not to prove that Nigeria is perfect, but to demonstrate that it is improving. The distinction between defiance and dialogue is crucial. When a nation responds to critique with reform, it earns respect; when it responds with denial alone, it risks isolation.

Nigeria’s inclusion on the CPC list is not a verdict of guilt but an invitation to introspection. The government’s swift, composed response, especially the President’s reaffirmation of Nigeria’s pluralist democracy, is commendable. Yet, the long-term answer lies in tangible reform: stronger institutions, fairer justice, and measurable protection of citizens’ rights.

The fear that such designations could hurt ordinary Nigerians is valid. But shielding the state from scrutiny under the guise of patriotism is counterproductive. True sovereignty is the courage to confront one’s failings.

If President Tinubu’s administration backs his words with action, strengthening capacity, enforcing accountability, and restoring trust, the controversy could become a turning point. Nigeria can emerge not as a country of concern, but as a country of conscience: one that turns global scrutiny into an opportunity for renewal, reform, and restored credibility at home and abroad.

The Accountable Reform channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va6de2U7oQhkR1uYDA1S

John Onyeukwu
http://www.policy.hu/onyeukwu/

 http://about.me/onyeukwu
“Let us move forward to fight poverty, to establish equity, and assure peace for the next generation.”
-- James D. Wolfensohn
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail, and delete or destroy the message. Thank you.