By Dr. DAVID WILLIAM

Introduction

The redesignation of Nigeria by the United States as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) represents one of the most consequential diplomatic developments in U.S.–Nigeria relations in recent years. Rooted in Washington’s International Religious Freedom Act (IRFA) of 1998, the designation targets countries alleged to permit “systematic, ongoing, and egregious violations” of religious freedom.

Nigeria’s inclusion, first under President Donald Trump in 2020 and recently revisited under renewed congressional and advocacy pressure, has provoked mixed interpretations across diplomatic, religious, and political circles. Proponents of the U.S. action cite the persistent killings of Christians in Northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt as evidence of religious persecution. However, the Nigerian government maintains that these incidents are complex manifestations of terrorism, banditry, and resource-based conflicts and not the result of a state policy or religious bias.

This tension highlights a larger question: to what extent should a sovereign state’s internal challenges be subject to external categorization, and how can Nigeria balance its national dignity with global expectations on human rights?

Background and Context

The United States and Nigeria have shared a long-standing, multifaceted relationship anchored on economic cooperation, counterterrorism, and democratic governance. Yet, recurring disputes over human rights, corruption, and internal security management have often strained this partnership.

When the Trump administration added Nigeria to the CPC list in December 2020, it was the first time a democratic African nation received such designation. Reports by organizations such as Open Doors USA and International Christian Concern alleged that the Nigerian government tolerated or failed to prevent violence against Christians. Nigeria strongly rejected these claims, arguing that such reports oversimplified a complex conflict landscape driven more by criminality and governance lapses than by religion.

The Biden administration, in its early days, removed Nigeria from the CPC list in 2021, signaling an openness to re-evaluation. However, by late 2024, amid pressure from the U.S. Congress, evangelical organizations, and international NGOs, discussions resurfaced regarding Nigeria’s re-designation. These developments occurred in the context of escalating insecurity in parts of Northern Nigeria, giving the issue renewed prominence in Washington’s human rights discourse.

Deconstructing America’s Motives

To understand the U.S. stance, one must appreciate the interplay between values-based diplomacy and strategic interest. America’s use of the CPC designation often serves multiple functions: moral, political, and geopolitical.

From a moral standpoint, the U.S. seeks to uphold religious liberty as a universal human right and an extension of its constitutional values. Politically, such actions appeal to powerful domestic constituencies, notably evangelical groups that lobby for global Christian protection. Strategically, the U.S. leverages human rights advocacy to maintain influence in Africa amid the growing presence of China and Russia.

Therefore, while the CPC label appears altruistic, it also functions as a soft-power instrument , a means to shape behavior through diplomatic pressure. In Nigeria’s case, the designation signals American disapproval of the state’s handling of violence while subtly reinforcing U.S. global leadership in moral diplomacy.

Nigeria’s Position and Tinubu’s Response

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration has approached the matter with measured firmness. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has dismissed the CPC allegations as “baseless, inaccurate, and politically motivated.” Tinubu’s team insists that Nigeria remains constitutionally secular and committed to religious freedom.

Speaking at an interfaith forum in Abuja, President Tinubu reiterated that “Nigeria’s conflicts are complex and multifactorial, not a product of religious intolerance.” He emphasized that the government’s counterterrorism operations have targeted all violent groups without discrimination and that Muslims and Christians have both suffered casualties in the nation’s prolonged security crisis.

Tinubu’s approach of blending engagement with assertion, reflects Nigeria’s traditional foreign policy doctrine of “non-alignment with mutual respect.” The Nigerian Embassy in Washington has intensified diplomatic outreach, engaging think tanks, religious organizations, and members of the U.S. Congress to provide context and data-based clarifications.

This posture underscores Nigeria’s preference for dialogue over confrontation while reaffirming its sovereign right to define and manage its internal challenges.

Religion, Security, and Misperception

Nigeria’s insecurity crisis is frequently misinterpreted through a religious lens. The reality is more layered.

Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgents pursue a jihadist ideology but have indiscriminately attacked Christians, Muslims, and state institutions alike.

Farmer–herder conflicts in the Middle Belt are largely driven by desertification, land scarcity, and resource competition, rather than by doctrinal hostility.

Banditry and kidnapping in Northern Nigeria thrive on poverty, unemployment, and weak governance structures, not sectarianism.

Thus, categorizing these conflicts solely as “religious persecution” distorts the nature of Nigeria’s security dilemma and underestimates the socioeconomic drivers behind them.

The Nigerian state, far from condoning persecution, has launched multiple joint operations — Hadarin Daji, Safe Haven, and Whirl Stroke, all aimed at neutralizing violent groups and restoring order across affected regions. These measures, though imperfect, underscore ongoing governmental effort rather than negligence.

Diplomatic Implications and the Question of Sovereignty

The CPC designation carries three key implications for Nigeria’s international image and diplomacy:

1. Symbolic Stigma: Being listed among violators of religious freedom, alongside countries like Iran, China, and North Korea, 7 damages Nigeria’s reputation as a democratic leader in Africa.

Strategic Consequences: Although direct sanctions can be waived, the designation threatens cooperation in areas such as arms sales, counterterrorism training, and military assistance are areas where U.S. support remains critical

Sovereignty Concerns

From an international law perspective, unilateral moral judgments challenge the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs enshrined in the UN Charter. Nigeria’s right to manage its internal crises without external imposition must be upheld.

For Washington, the designation represents a policy of “principled realism”; for Abuja, it is an affront to national sovereignty and a misreading of Nigeria’s pluralist democracy.

Evaluating the Rationale Behind America’s Threat

The moral argument underpinning the CPC status is not entirely baseless — violence against Christians and other civilians is a matter of grave concern. However, the selectivity and inconsistency of U.S. application raise questions. Why, for instance, are countries with comparable or worse records spared similar censure?

Nigeria’s diversity is a national strength, not a liability. Its constitution, particularly Section 38, guarantees freedom of religion. Successive governments have defended this principle through inclusive policies and interfaith engagement.

America’s unilateral threat of sanctions overlooks these constitutional safeguards and ongoing reforms. It also risks emboldening extremist narratives that exploit external interference as proof of Western bias. Therefore, while Washington’s intent to defend human rights is commendable, its methodology requires deeper contextual understanding and greater diplomatic nuance.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NIGERIA

1. Diplomacy of Engagement, Not Confrontation

Nigeria should adopt strategic engagement with Washington, maintaining regular dialogue through its embassy, the African diaspora, and policy forums. Providing credible data on interfaith initiatives and security operations can counter negative perceptions. Nigeria should at this juncture constitute a team of seasoned diplomats like Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former Commonwealth Secretary General and others to engage with the USA

2. Strengthen Faith Diplomacy

Nigeria’s respected religious leaders — both Christian and Muslim, should be mobilized as informal ambassadors to international forums, fostering direct communication with U.S. religious advocacy groups. This people-to-people diplomacy can bridge misunderstanding.

3. Deepen Internal Reforms

At home, government must enhance interfaith institutions such as the Nigerian Interreligious Council (NIREC) and ensure security forces act impartially in all conflict zones. Addressing socio-economic roots of violence, land disputes, youth unemployment, and rural poverty — is equally essential.

4. Mobilize Regional and Global Support

Nigeria should work with the African Union, ECOWAS, and even emerging blocs like BRICS to resist arbitrary external classifications and to articulate an African-led human rights framework grounded in contextual realities.

The Tinubu Doctrine and Nigeria’s Way Forward

President Tinubu’s diplomatic style reflects a pragmatic realism shaped by Nigeria’s changing geopolitical environment. His administration seeks to reposition Nigeria as a regional leader that engages global powers on the basis of mutual respect and reciprocity.

The CPC redesignation challenge offers an opportunity for Nigeria to demonstrate institutional maturity and policy coherence. Rather than perceiving the U.S. stance as hostility, Nigeria can use this moment to reinforce domestic cohesion, strengthen dialogue mechanisms, and showcase measurable progress in national unity and interfaith peacebuilding.

Furthermore, Nigeria must diversify its partnerships — deepening cooperation with the European Union, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, and the Global South. A multi-vector foreign policy will dilute over independence on any single partner and increase Nigeria’s strategic leverage.

Conclusion

The U.S. redesignation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern is a reminder of the delicate balance between moral diplomacy and national sovereignty in the modern world. While the U.S. may claim moral high ground, Nigeria’s experience defies simplistic categorization.

Religious freedom in Nigeria, though challenged by insecurity, remains constitutionally protected and socially practiced. The violence witnessed across parts of the country stems not from official persecution but from systemic weaknesses, socio-economic disparities, and the global scourge of terrorism.

A mature Nigeria must respond with clarity, confidence, and credibility — addressing genuine internal failings while refusing to be defined by external misperceptions. President Tinubu’s administration thus stands at a pivotal moment to rebuild trust with international partners and reaffirm Nigeria’s position as a sovereign, pluralistic democracy that values both faith and freedom.

In the final analysis, the CPC designation should not divide Nigeria and the United States, but rather inspire a deeper partnership founded on truth, respect, and shared humanity.

•Dr. David William, former staff of The Presidential Advisory Council on International Relations, The Presidency, Abuja, is a political analyst and public commentator with experience in international relations, governance, and conflict diplomacy.