Compiled By Televangelist HB Morgan 

MAKE A DONATION. PARTNER TODAY. (NAIRA | DOLLARS | POUNDS) CLICK >>

The Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in the 19 northern states and the Federal Capital Territory has urged Nigerians not to misinterpret remarks by former U.S. President Donald Trump as a threat to the nation, but rather as a prompt to address terrorism, religious violence and national unity. 

Rev. John Joseph Hayab, CAN’s chairman for that region, told the News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) that instead of turning Trump’s comments into inter-faith conflict, the moment should be seized by Christians and Muslims alike to demand “concrete action” from government to put an end to the killing of individuals on account of faith or identity. 

Hayab emphasised that a fair reading of Trump’s statement reveals concern and a call to action rather than condemnation of Nigerians. “If you choose to read President Trump’s statement with an open mind, you will simply hear the voice of a visitor who cares about you and wants you to do something serious to enjoy peace and unity in your country,” he said. 

He warned against groups that might try to exploit the remarks for political or sectarian gain, urging Nigerians to ignore attempts to twist the statement into a divisive tool. “We should disregard those who are manipulating and twisting what was said to instigate us against one another to divide us further,” he cautioned. 

In a pointed challenge, Hayab noted that Trump’s reference was explicitly to terrorists and not the Nigerian people. “He said if nothing is done, his military will come after the terrorists, not after Nigerians — or are some of us admitting that we are part of the terrorists?” he asked. 

According to him, Nigeria’s most critical need at this juncture is not outrage but for all citizens—whether Christian, Muslim or non-believer—to enjoy freedom of faith and practice without fear. “What we want is freedom for all to practice our faith, whether we are Christians, Muslims, or free thinkers,” he said. 

Finally, Hayab appealed to both religious and political leadership to view this as a test of maturity and unity for the nation. He said that what the country must demonstrate now is not division but solidarity, pointing out that Trump’s comment should be seen as a call to show that “unity, not division, defines who we are as a nation.” 

On 1 November 2025, President Trump via his social-media platform announced that he had instructed the U.S. Department of Defence to prepare for “possible action” in Nigeria, declaring:

 “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities.” 

He labelled Christianity as facing an “existential threat” in Nigeria and pointed specifically to radical Islamist groups being responsible for what he described as “mass slaughter”. 

In a parallel move, Nigeria was redesignated by the U.S. as a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) on religious-freedom grounds. 

Nigerian Government’s Response

Nigeria’s government reacted swiftly. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu issued a statement rejecting the assertion that Nigeria was religiously intolerant or that the state condoned persecution. He emphasised that “Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so.” 

Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar later underscored that “state-backed religious persecution is impossible” under Nigeria’s constitution, reinforcing that no level of government can legally sanction such actions. 

Underlying Security Landscape in Nigeria

The context for Trump’s remarks is Nigeria’s long-running struggle with violent extremist groups such as Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), as well as communal clashes in the Middle Belt and farm-herder violence that frequently take on religious and ethnic overtones. 

While many attacks do happen in majority-Muslim northern regions, and both Christians and Muslims are victims, the framing of the violence as chiefly Christian persecution is contested. In fact, analysts note that many victims of Boko Haram insurgency are Muslim. 

Legal, Strategic & Diplomatic Implications

Military analysts note that while Trump’s rhetoric is unprecedented—threatening intervention if Nigeria does not act—the legal and operational basis for a U.S. military strike in Nigeria is highly uncertain. U.S. deployment abroad typically requires host-nation consent, congressional authorisation or UN mandate. 

From Nigeria’s perspective, the threat raises major sovereignty concerns. Abuja has offered to cooperate with the U.S. on counter-terrorism so long as its territorial integrity and authority are respected. 

Why the Timing and Framing Matter

Observers suggest several motivations and repercussions:

* Trump’s rhetorical escalation signals a shift in how religious-freedom issues might be linked to foreign policy and military posture. 

* The move resonates with domestic U.S. political constituencies concerned with “global Christian persecution”. 

* For Nigeria, the incident underscores the complexity of its security environment, where violence is multi-causal (terrorism, communal conflict, resource competition) and not purely religious. Mis-characterising it risks inflaming inter-faith tensions and complicating international cooperation. 

What It Means Going Forward

For Nigeria, the situation presents both challenge and opportunity:

* Challenge: The government must show credible progress in addressing violence and improving protection for all citizens, while resisting oversimplified religious narratives.

* Opportunity: The international spotlight may open avenues for increased cooperation, aid or reform—but only if handled with nuance and respect for sovereignty.

For U.S.–Nigeria relations, trust and partnership hinge on whether the threat evolves into genuine collaboration rather than unilateral action. Abuja appears keen to maintain the partnership but insists on its terms and dignity.

Key Events

* July 2009 – Boko Haram launches armed rebellion in northeastern Nigeria, attacking police stations and government installations. 

* 26 August 2011 – A vehicle-bomb attack on the UN headquarters in Abuja: at least 23 people killed, 80+ injured. ([Director of National Intelligence]

* 11 February 2014 – Massacre in Konduga (Borno State): at least 62 Christian villagers killed in an attack by Boko Haram. 

* 14 April 2014 – Abduction of more than 250 schoolgirls from a dormitory in Chibok (Borno State). 

* 3-7 January 2015 – The “Baga Massacre” (Borno State): Boko Haram overruns a military base, kills large numbers of civilians – estimates vary widely (150-2,000+). 

* 30 January 2016 – “Dalori Attack”: Suburban town near Maiduguri attacked; 86 killed, 135+ injured in one of the more devastating recent assaults. 

* 3 September 2024 – “Tarmuwa Massacre” (Yobe State): Over 130 villagers reportedly killed by militants of the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP) in reprisal against alleged collaboration with military. 

* Ongoing to 2025 – The insurgency continues; displaced persons, civilian deaths and attacks remain high. The region remains flagged by human-rights monitors as a crisis area. 

Why This Matters

* The repeated mass-casualty attacks on civilians, including specific religious communities and geographic regions, underpin the heightened concern about violence and persecution.

* Many of the incidents involve either Christian or Muslim civilians, or entire mixed-community towns, complicating simplistic narratives of “only one religious group victims.”

* The insurgents’ tactics — large-scale massacres, abductions, bombings of churches and markets — reinforce the security urgency and fuel both domestic and international reactions.

• The attacks show patterns of targeting civilians (villages, schools, places of worship), which bear heavily on how external actors (governments, international organisations) interpret Nigeria’s permissiveness or vulnerability.
• The timeline illustrates that Nigeria’s security challenge is not new and spans more than a decade; thus comments by foreign actors noting “ongoing killing” are rooted in long-standing facts rather than isolated recent events.

Join DMTN TV Network Members-only Platform (SIGN-UP / LOG-IN) Click Here

Courtesy of: Divinity Media Telecast Networld DMTN Television Network Digital Library™