2

ADEWALE AKINTADE

In the often turbulent arena of international relations, few words carry as heavy a stigma as “genocidal”. It’s more than just diplomatic criticism—it is an accusation that strikes at a country’s legitimacy, implying it has abandoned core human principles.

For a country like Nigeria, being branded—whether officially or informally—as responsible for genocide would mark an existential crisis, shaking its political stability, economic prospects, and social fabric.

The U.S. politician who accused Nigeria of this horrendous act is Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas). He introduced the Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act of 2025. Senator Cruz claims that since 2009, over 50,000 Christians in Nigeria have been killed, that over 20,000 churches and Christian religious institutions have been destroyed. He alleges that some Nigerian officials facilitate Islamist-terrorist violence and that some states enforce sharia/blasphemy laws that further target Christians and other religious minorities.

Under his bill, these officials would face targeted sanctions and Nigeria stands the risk of being designated a “Country of Particular Concern” with respect to religious freedom.

The Nigerian government has rejected these claims, calling them false, misleading and not reflective of reality. Diplomatic channels are now being explored to engage the U.S. administration.

The specific numbers Cruz cited were: 52,000 Christians killed; 20,000+ churches destroyed. These numbers were described by the Nigerian government as “absurd”, lacking factual support and were rejected outright. Nigeria insists the violence is part of a wider problem of terrorism, banditry, criminality etc., and not a government-sponsored or religiously targeted genocide.

The highly respected diplomat, the distinguished Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, Nigeria’s Former Foreign Affairs Minister, has publicly expressed his disgust that this allegation was hurled at Nigerian by the American, thus further bringing Nigeria to a new low in our downward slide to ignominy and loss of reputation.

Let’s try to unpack what this accusation will likely portend for Nigeria. The United Nations defines genocide as acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Such acts can include killing members of the group, inflicting serious harm, creating conditions to bring about physical destruction, preventing births, or forcibly transferring children. The key element is the “intent” to destroy.

Although formal legal declarations are rare and involve detailed processes, the global public opinion often moves faster. A persistent narrative of state-sponsored or tolerated mass violence against specific groups can, over time, lead to an almost as damaging label of genocide—regardless of legal rulings.

 Immediate Political and Diplomatic Consequences

A genocidal label would trigger swift diplomatic fallout. Nigeria’srelations with Western democracies would undergo drastic reevaluation. High-level visits, security partnerships and military cooperation would be suspended or canceled. As a regional power and a key partner for countries like the U.S., the U.K., and EU nations, Nigeria could rapidly become isolated—a pariah state. Diplomacy would shift from constructive engagement to intense pressure, demanding accountability, investigations and immediate reforms.

Within international organizations, Nigeria’s influence would diminish sharply. Its ability to shape debates at the United Nations or the African Union would be compromised. Its aspiration for seats such as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council would become unattainable. Instead, Nigeria would be placed under strict scrutiny, with international intervention looming as a possibility. The most serious concern centers on sovereignty itself. The principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), adopted by the UN in 2005, holds that state sovereignty is not a shield for mass atrocities. If a country is unwilling or unable to protect its population from genocide, the international community has a duty to act. A credible accusation against Nigeria could ignite discussions on R2P measures— ranging from sanctions and arms embargoes to, in extreme cases, military intervention.

 This would be a stark failure of the Nigerian state’s fundamental duty: safeguarding its citizens.

Economic Havoc

 The economic repercussions would be immediate and severe. Investors prioritize stability and confidence; an accusation of genocide would be perceived as the highest possible risk.

Investment would flood out, with foreign direct investment drying up and multinational firms halting expansion plans. Stock markets could crash. The value of the Naira would plunge as confidence erodes.

Beyond capital flight, Nigeria would face stark institutional isolation. Major financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF would reassess their engagement. Support for development projects—crucial for infrastructure, health, and education—could be suspended. Access to international capital would become prohibitively expensive and Nigeria’s credit rating might fall into junk status.

Targeted sanctions could amplify the crisis. Countries like the U.S. and members of the EU could impose asset freezes and travel bans on key officials responsible for or implicated in atrocities. Sector-specific sanctions, especially on Nigeria’s oil industry— its economic backbone—could be devastating. Sanctions that hinder oil exports would induce hyperinflation, widespread unemployment and social unrest.

 Social Breakdown and Legitimacy Crisis

 Internally, the impact would be even more damaging. Accusations of genocide would shatter the social contract, especially among communities perceived as the targets. The state’s role would morph from protector to aggressor in the eyes of those groups, deepening divisions and fostering resentment. This could lead to radicalization, armed resistance, and a collapse of trust in national institutions. The reservation some people have about the Muslim-Muslim ticket that brought this administration to power may now look valid.

For other religious and ethnic communities, the label creates an atmosphere of suspicion and fear. It would turn a local conflict into a national trauma, forcing citizens to take sides.

 The idea of a unified Nigeria would be exposed as an illusion, replaced by narratives of victimhood and persecution. Such fragmentation could push a fragile country like Nigeria toward either prolonged conflict or outright disintegration.

The government’s moral authority would evaporate. Its ability to negotiate peace or maintain order would be undermined. How could an accused state legitimately mediate disputes or uphold the rule of law? Internally, it would become less capable of managing challenges—from separatist agitation in the Southeast to resource conflicts across the country.

Nigeria’s Fragile Reality: Applying this framework to Nigeria is not hypothetical; the country already faces accusations of complicity and indifference in various forms of violence. Conflicts between farmers and herders, the Boko Haram insurgency and reports of human rights abuses suggest that Nigeria’s image teeters on the edge of such a devastating label. International organizations like Amnesty International andHuman Rights Watch have continually documented abuses, and past restrictions—such as the U.S. halting certain military sales— highlight the path towards potential isolation.

Economically, Nigeria is vulnerable. Its reserves are low, it faces high debt payments, and inflation is rampant. A collapse of foreign investment and sectoral sanctions, especially on the crude oil trade, would plunge Nigeria into an unprecedented economic crisis—severely impacting millions of Nigerians living in poverty. Socially, such a designation could fuel separatist sentiments, pushing the country toward an irreversible crisis.

 Moving Forward: Prevention and Accountability

Avoiding this catastrophe requires proactive, transparent and decisive action, much more than we are witnessing now. The government must demonstrate a sincere commitment to accountability—investigating allegations thoroughly, prosecuting perpetrators, and addressing grievances at their root. International cooperation is vital: granting access to investigators, engaging in frank dialogue and embracing reforms in security and justice sectors.

Above all, Nigeria must rebuild trust through genuine engagement and reform, recognizing that its sovereignty depends on upholding the human rights of every citizen. The stakes are high—failure to act could Herald a descent into chaos from which recovery may be decades away.

Akintade, a Foreign Affairs Analyst, writes from Lagos (Akintadewale091@ gmail.com).