torulaghareportsdotcom

The Multiracial Nature of the Victims of the Arab/Islamic Slave Trade

Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

To understand the Arab/Islamic slave trade, which is sometimes referred to as the Eastern slave trade, it is necessary to examine the way Islam started. Unlike Christianity and Judaism, the Islamic movement started in a violent environment and could only survive as a religion by fighting wars of survival which later turned into wars of conquest. As Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) started preaching his brand of religion, he was rejected by the people of Medina, and they wanted to crush him. The experiences gained through constant fighting combined with spiritual beliefs emanating from the Prophet’s circumstances culminated in the emergence and spread of Islam. The Koran reflects these developments.

Thus, the process of mixing spiritual beliefs with military tactics led to the categorization of people into two worlds, namely, the World of Peace and the World of War. Those who embraced Islam existed in the World of Peace and non-Muslims existed in the World of War. Accordingly, those who existed in the world of war were expected to convert to Islam or pay a certain tax until either they convert to Islam or remain in the world of war as infidels. It seems that one of the major goals of Muslims is to compel non-believers to embrace Islam.

The Purpose of this essay is to explore Islamic contributions to the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of people during the spreading of the religion to Africa, some parts of Asia and Europe. Thus, the Arab/Islamic slave trade is referred to as the Eastern slave trade in contrast to the Western slave trade which is known as the Atlantic slave trade. To accomplish the goal, four arguments are made here. First, while adherents strongly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, it was largely spread through bloody wars of survival, conquest, enslavement, and colonization. The process resulted in the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of people who were viewed as living in the world of war. Second, although the concept of the two worlds is no longer a pronounced facet of Islamic faith, nonetheless, modern day militant jihadism which is directed at forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam is a reinforcement of the two worlds’ concept in Islam. Third, while Christendom and the Western world have accepted, to a large extent, responsibility and apologized for the Atlantic slave trade, as Pope Leo XIV did, Islamic leaders and the Arab world continue to remain silent and have not acknowledged the role Islam played in the mass-scale enslavement of millions of people, especially Black Africans. Fourth, as far as Arab and Islamic leaders continue to remain silent over the slave trade, the more slavery will continue to be perpetuated in some parts of the world as jihadists provoke

wars through terrorist acts to impose Islam.

The Islamic Wars of Survival Leading to Full-Blown Wars of Conquest, Enslavement and Colonization

Thus, the first war Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers fought to survive was known as the Battle of Badr which is also referred to as the Raid of Badr or the Day of Criterion. It took place on March 13, 624 CE when his 313 members resisted being crushed by a much larger force (Watt, 1956). The second battle Prophet Muhammad fought is known as Battle of Uhud in 625 CE. It was fought on the outskirts of Medina as the Prophet and his followers faced a Meccan force comprising of 1000 fighters. The Prophet suffered injury from this battle but survived the onslaught. The third war that the Prophet and his followers fought was the Battle of the Trench which took place in April, 627 CE. About ten thousand fighters of a confederate force tried to defeat Medina and the Muslims. The Muslims dug trenches as a defensive tactic to fight the siege which lasted for seventeen days. Eventually, the Muslims defeated the much larger force (Eaalim Institute. 2026, April 28).

While fighting to survive, war became a major tool of Islamic expansion. Hence, Islamic forces led by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab of the Rashidun Caliphate captured Jerusalem in 638 CE from the Christians. Then Islamic forces led by Amr Ibn al-As of the Rashidun Caliphate crossed from Palestine to capture Egypt in 642 CE. The Muslims ruled Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Christian Crusade recaptured it from the Muslims in 1099 CE (The Muslims occupy Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Crusade. n.d.)

After the capture of Jerusalem, war became a major tool for Islamic expansion. Consequently, under the Umayyad Caliphate, Commander Tariq ibn Ziyad led Islamic forces to cross into Spain in 711 CE. Later, other Arab and Islamic forces joined him, thereby, leading to the capture of Spain and Portugal around 720 CE. The Muslims ruled Spain and Portugal for almost eight hundred years before Christian forces pushed them back into Morocco in 1492 CE (Collins, 1983). The Christian war against the Muslims operated in two phases. First, Afonso III recaptured Portugal in 1249 CE after Faro fell. Then, in 1492 CE, the Catholic Christian forces recaptured Granada, thereby ending Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula. The biggest price for the Muslims came when they succeeded in capturing Constantinople, the former eastern capital of the Roman Empire which later became the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantine Empire on May 29, 1453 (Foster, 2006, September 22).

As described above, Islam was spread by warfare, right from the beginning. It spread very quickly within one hundred years, thereby resulting in the capturing, colonizing and Islamizing of the Iberian Peninsula as well as some parts of Southern Europe through warfare. Since Islam was mostly spread by warfare, then what happened to the victims of the wars? Were they treated as prisoners of war or as slaves? The answer is that defeated and captured victims from non-Islamic territories were treated as slaves since the Sharia allows for the enslavement of non-Muslim captives.

The World of War and the Institutionalization of Slavery

It should be noted that the Sharia supports slavery but has extensive regulations concerning the treatment of slaves. For instance, non-Muslim men (dhimmis) who lived in Islamic societies were expected to pay a tax known as Jizya to escape being treated as infidels. To be treated as an infidel is to be treated like a slave if the individual does not convert. For instance, when the Muslims captured Constantinople, 33,000 people were captured and enslaved. It should be noted that it was an accepted practice for commanders of Islamic forces to allow their troops to plunder, loot, and enslave a defeated city or territory for three days before restoring order gradually.

Thus, Arab/Islamic involvement in commercialized whole-scale slave trade started much earlier than the European/Christian Atlantic Slave trade. Part of the effort to spread Islam included the enslavement of defeated groups, including Arabs, Asians, Europeans and Black Africans. Hence, the phases of Islamic slave trades are categorized as follows: (1) Trans-Saharan slave trade, (2) Red Sea slave trade, (3) Indian Ocean slave trade, (4) The Ottoman slave trade, (5) Crimean slave trade, and (6) the Barbary Coast slave trade around the Mediterranean. The Trans-Sahara slave trade involved slaves taken from West and Central African regions that were transported through the Trans-Sahara. The Red Sea slave trade involved slaves captured from Northeast and Southeast Africa. The Indian Ocean slave trade involved slaves captured among the communities along the Indian Ocean, including those from India, Persia, and the Arab states. The Ottoman slave trade involved the capturing and selling of slaves from Eastern and Central Europe as well as the Caucasus. The Crimean slave trade also involved slaves captured from the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The Barbary Coast slave trade involved slaves captured along the Mediterranean region and stretching as far as the British Isles and Iceland in Scandinavia.

The slave trades were orchestrated by the politico-religious Islamic potentates. Hence, the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), Umayyad Caliphate (661-759), Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), Maluk Sultanate (1258-1517), and Ottoman Empire (1517-1922) were all involved in the institutionalization of slavery. Thus, slavery perpetrated by the Muslims was not limited to any particular race since slaves were captured from all regions conquered by the Muslims (Lewis, 1970).

For instance, the Muhamad bin Qasim Umayyad Dynasty attacked and conquered Sindh in the eighth century. Thousands of people were captured and enslaved. In one instance, about 60,000 people were taken as slaves (Wink, 1990). Additionally, the Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent resulted in the deaths of about 40 to 60 million people between 1000 and 1525 CE. Likewise, Mahmud of Ghazni’s series of invasions of India resulted in the deaths of about two million people from 1000 to 1027 CE (Lai, 1999). About one million slaves were captured when Muslims conquered Iberia (Spain and Portugal) from 711 to 1492 CE. Some of the slaves came from other parts of Europe (Constable, 1996). About 2 or 3 million slaves from the Caucasus, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia were captured and sold into slavery between 1500 and 1700 by Crimean Tartars. Most of the slaves ended up in the Ottoman Empire. It is estimated that between 16^th and 17^th centuries, a fifth of the population of Constantinople (Istanbul) were slaves. The piratical attacks on the Barbary Coast resulted in the capture of about 1.25 million European slaves along the Mediterranean and stretching to England between 1530 and 1780. The Arab/ Islamic pirates operated from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia (Carrol, 2004, March 11).

Slaves captured and traded from Eastern and Central Europe, the Caucasus, Mediterranean, and stretching to Scandinavia are referred to as White slaves. However, the number of White slaves captured and traded by the Arabs/Muslims paled in comparison to the number of Black Africans captured and traded. Muslim rulers were heavily involved in mass enslavement of people. For instance, Ronald Segal in his book “Islam’s Black Slaves: The Other Black Diaspora” noted that “The Calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10^th century had 7,000 Black and 4,000 White eunuchs in his palace” (Moore, 2014, June 2). Adam Hochschild agreed with Segal by noting that the Caliph of Baghdad had 11,000 slaves at his palace (2001, March 4).

The Justification for Treating Non-Muslims as Slaves

It should be noted that under Islam, it is justifiable to treat non-Muslims as slaves, as indicated above. However, the treatment of slaves is regulated to a certain degree. Thus, the mistreatment of slaves is banned and they could gain freedom. Likewise, slave owners are expected to provide medical care to them. Therefore, it was not surprising that some slaves rose in rank and occupied important strategic positions in many Islamic states in the past. For instance, a caliph in Egypt in the 11th century was the son of a Black slave concubine. Likewise, a former Turkish slave named Baybars, led a military force which defeated a Mongolian army that attempted to conquer Egypt in 1260. Similarly, an Ethiopian slave became the vizier to the Sultan of Delhi in India (Hochschild, 2001, March 4). While non-Muslims could be enslaved, they could pay a tax called Kharaj/Jizya to avoid being captured and enslaved, as indicated earlier (Boddy-Evans, 2019, June 30).

However, slaves were treated as humans in one hand and as property on the other hand. They were not allowed to be heard in the court of law. Consequently, slavery was common and many Islamic leaders in the past had slaves. This made it difficult to abolish slavery in Islamic societies, even after the international campaign to stop slavery had put a stop to the despicable trade in the West, it continued in the Islamic world up to the twentieth century. The BBC noted that when the Atlantic slave trade was abolished, the Eastern slave trade actually expanded (2009, July 9).

The Arab/Islamic Slave Trade of Black Africans

The Arab/Islamic slave trade that affected Sub-Saharan Africa could be broken into three segments: namely, the North African/Horn of Africa slave trade, the Eastern African slave trade, and the trans-Saharan slave trade. Zanzibar served as the nerve center for the Eastern African slave trade and Mauretania served as the nerve center for the trans-Saharan slave trade. They were noted for serving as transportation hubs for carting away millions of people. Blacks in the North-Eastern and Eastern flanks of the African continent were probably the first to experience the raiding and capturing of their members by Arab traders and later by Islamic jihadists. Probably, Bilal (b. Rabah), was one of the earliest African Blacks to have been captured as a slave and one of the first to have converted to Islam (Hunwick, 2002). He was beholden to Abu Bakr, a major Islamic leader at the time.

Many Black Africans ended up in North Africa, Middle East, India and probably Southern Europe through Turkey. As Islam spread deeper into Sub-Saharan Africa, more people were captured and sent away as slaves. It is estimated that about 10 to 20 million Blacks were captured as slaves and sent away. Some historians believed that over 20 million Black people were sold into slavery through the trans-Saharan route (Moore, 2014, June 2).

Arab/Islamic slave traders castrated many captured Black men, especially young men so that they could not reproduce. Many castrated men ended up serving in various palaces throughout the Islamic Middle East and Africa. Adam Hochschild noted that Muslim elites “wanted them (slaves) as guards, and soldiers, as concubines, as cooks, as musicians, and simply to show how rich they were” (ibid). In particular, the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs were noted for recruiting many Blacks (Zanj) to serve as soldiers in their military forces.

The Arab/Islamic slave trade existed for about thirteen centuries, starting from about 650 CE in the Middle East, including North Africa. However, it became a major feature of interaction in Black Africa, starting from about the 8th or 9th century. It resulted in the deaths of millions of captured Blacks. The slave raids were very brutal and inhumane. However, it must be noted that some scholars maintain that the total number of Africans captured and sold as slaves were less than ten million since the population of the sub-continent was less than the figures often quoted.

Unlike the Western/Christian Atlantic slave trade, slavery continues even today in Islamic countries in North Africa and the Middle East. Charles Jacob noted that Blacks continue to be sold as slaves to serve Arab/Muslim masters in Algeria, Libya, Mauretania, Nigeria and Sudan (2018, July 16). Additionally, the rise in militant Islamic movements has led to the continuation of enslavement of people. The Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State of West Africa Province (ISWAP) and a host of militant Islamic groups continue to raid, capture, abduct and engage in human trafficking which eventually results in the enslavement of people. In Nigeria, Boko Haram, ISWAP, Ansaru and herdsmen continue to engage in terrorist acts that are reminiscent of the Janjaweed terrorist acts in Darfur in Sudan and the Seleka militants in Central African Republic. Apart from Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mali, Niger, Mozambique, Uganda, and so forth, in Africa continue to face jihadist terrorism.

Jihadist threats worsen in Africa after the fall of Col. Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 as Islamic jihadists poured into Libya to loot arms and continue their deadly attempt to spread Islam. As a result, Libya has been particularly notorious for being a center for human trafficking and enslavement of people. Many African migrants ended up serving as slaves in the country. The victims are both Muslims and Christians. It should also be noted that human trafficking and treatment of people as slaves also seem to take place in other parts of the world, including the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Thus, slavery has not abetted, rather, it is taking on a different coloration and modus operandi with a devastating effect in the modern era.

An important historical notation is that Islam was spread initially in Black Africa through peaceful means. Many Black Africans voluntarily converted to the religion as they traded and intermingled with their Arab neighbors, starting from about the 8th century. Two of the most noted African political leaders who converted to Islam were Mansa Uli and Mansa Musa 1 of the Mali Empire (Cartwright, 2019, May 10). Although the leader of the ancient Ghana Empire did not convert to Islam, nevertheless, he tolerated Muslims in his empire. The militant form of Islamization began much later in Sub-Saharan Africa as the Muslims attempted to convert those who had already converted to Christianity, especially in Nubia, Ethiopia and some parts of East Africa. Around the 18^th century, Muslim Fulanis initiated the Islamic jihad in the Lake Chad region of Africa (Cartwright, 2019, May 10).

While the notion of two worlds, namely, the World of Peace and the World of War is no longer a pronounced facet of Islamic religion, nonetheless, Islamic jihadists continue to view the world in that regard. This is why they are waging holy wars against non-Muslims to force them to convert to Islam. The jihadists are aided in their goal of Islamizing the world by radical Islamic clerics. For instance, in Nigeria, a Yoruba-speaking Islamic cleric, Shafiy Adeba advocated the enslavement and violent suppression of non-Muslims. Citing sections of the Sharia, he stated unhesitatingly:

Allah said fight them, enslave them, lock them inside their homes, don’t let them go to market, don’t let them go to farm, don’t let them see the sun. It’s the Muslim who has the right to enslave the kafir, not the other way around. Anywhere you find them hiding, seal them. That’s what Allah said in the Quran. It’s always first attack. War against kafir is rooted in Islam. What I am saying is that if you refuse to implement these laws on them, they would reciprocate with theirs on you (Ojo, 2026, August 10).

Another Nigerian Islamic cleric, Sheikh Sani Jingir referred to Christians in Nigeria as infidels and openly called for a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket in Nigeria while addressing a political gathering organized by the Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah in Kano (Isenyo and Folorunsho-Francis, 2026, August 11). Thus, Islam is irrevocably tied to the idea of converting non-Muslims by force if they do not do so voluntarily.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the following observations are made based on the four arguments enumerated above.

First, while most Muslims strongly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, it was largely spread through wars of survival, conquest, enslavement, and colonization. The reason is that the Islamic movement faced an existential threat from the moment of its creation. To survive, fighting grueling wars became part of the process for the institutionalization of the religion. Thus, fighting, killing, destroying, capturing and enslaving of combatants and non-combatants were routinized through series of wars. The military situation was compounded by the fact that the division of the world into the World of Peace and the World of War contributed immensely to the justification for the capturing and enslaving of millions of people in Africa, Asia and Europe.

Second, while many Muslims might say that the concept of the two worlds is no longer a pronounced facet of Islam, nevertheless, modern day militant jihadism which is directed at forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam is a continuation of the two worlds’ concept in Islam. The jihadists and some Islamic clerics continue to refer to non-Muslims as infidels, thereby, justifying the need to attack, subjugate, kill and enslave them just as Imam Shafiy Adeba said recently in Nigeria.

Third, while Christian and Western religious and political leaders are addressing the issues concerning the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of Black Africans and Native Americans, Arab and Islamic leaders have not made any attempt to address the issue of the Islamic mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of Africans, Asians and Europeans during the Eastern slave trade.

Fourth, the unwillingness of Arab and Islamic leaders to acknowledge and address the massive Islamic enslavement of millions of people means that the capturing and enslaving of non-Muslims is still an acceptable practice in Islam. Islamic jihadists who engage in terrorist acts to force conversion of non-Muslims strongly believe that they are justified to do so because Islamic leaders have not spoken against the violence being perpetrated in Africa, Middle, and Europe.

References

Azumah, J. A. (2001). The legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A quest for inter-religious dialogue. London: Oneworld Publications.

Boddy-Evans, A. (2019, June 30). The role of Islam in African slave trade. Thoughtco. https://thoughtco.com/the-role-of-islam-in-african-slavery-44532

Carroll, R. (2004, Marh 11). New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books.

Cartwright, M. (2019, May 10). The spread of Islam in Ancient Africa. Ancient History Encyclopedia. https://ancient.eu/article/1382/the-spread-of-islam-in-ancient-africa.

Collins, R. (1983). Early Medieval Spain. New York: St. Martins Press.

Constable, O. R. (1996). Trade and traders in Muslim Spain: The commercial realignment of the Iberian Peninsula. Cambridge University Press.

Eaalim Institute. (2026, April 28). The battle of the trench: When an idea defeated an army. https://eaalim.com/blogs/islamic/the-battle-of-the-trench.

Foster, C. (2006, September 22). The Conquest of Constantinople and the end of empire. Contemporary Review. The fall of Constantinople and the end of empire. – Free Online Library.

Hochschild, Adam. (2001, March 4). Human cargo: A study of the little known slave trade in the Islamic world. New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/04/reviews/010304.04hochsct.html.

Hunwick, John. (n.d.). Arab views of black Africans and slavery. Gilder Lehrman Center. Yale. https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/events/race/Hunwick.pdf.

Isenyo, G and Folorunsho-Francis, A. (2026, August 11). APC Muslim-Muslim ticket: Cleric’s ‘infidels’ remark sparks condemnation. Punch. https://punchng.com/apc-muslim-muslim-ticket-clerics-infidels-remark-sparks-condemnation/#google_vignette.

Jacobs, C. (2018, July 16). Black slaves, Muslim masters. Jihad Watch. https://jihadwatch.org/2018/black-slave-muslim-masters.

Lai, K. S. (1999). Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dn760000.eu.archive.org/0/items/theory-and-practice-of-muslim-state-in-india-k.-s.-lal/Theory%20And%20Practice%20Of%20Muslim%20State%20In%20India%20-%20K.%20S.%20Lal.pdf.

Lewis, B. (1970). Race and color in Islam. Harper and Row.

Moore, A. (2014, June 2). 10 facts about the Arab enslavement of black people not taught in schools. Atlanta Black Star. https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-thought-in-schools/.

Muslims occupy Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Crusade. (n.d.). History of Information. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1638.

Ojo, N. (2026, August 10). Yoruba Islamic cleric Shafiy Adeba advocates enslavement of non-Muslims, says war against Kafir is rooted in Islam. The Trumpet. https://thetrumpet.ng/yoruba-islamic-cleric-shafiy-adeba-advocates-enslavement-of-non-muslims-says-war-against-kafir-is-rooted-in-islam/#google_vignette.

Segal, R. (2002). Islam’s black slaves: The other black diaspora. (2002). Farrar Straus & Giroux.

Slavery in Islam. (2009, July 9). BBC. https://bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtm.

Vallangi, N. (2016, August 4). India’s forgotten African tribe. BBC. https://bbc.com/travel/story/20160801-india’s-forgotten-jungle-dwellers.

Watt. W. M. (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford/Clarendon Press.

Wink, A. (1990). Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 1, Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam, Seventh to Eleventh Centuries. Leiden.

The Nigerian – Biafran War and the Accusation of Genocide: Which Side is Liable for Such a Crime?

By Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

Fifty-six years after the Nigerian – Biafran War (July 6, 1967, to January 15, 1970) ended, a narrative is being spread that Nigeria committed genocide during the war by carrying out a naval blockade of the Bight of Biafra/Bonny, thereby, preventing food and supplies from getting into Biafra to feed the civilian population who suffered from massive starvation, kwashiorkor and death. Those who espoused this perspective believe that Nigeria committed genocide by intentionally preventing food supplies from getting into Biafra through the sea by blockading the coast. As a result, a considerable number of civilians starved to death in Biafra. Based on this reasoning, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and other leaders of Nigeria during the civil war are accused of committing genocide.

Some publications which hinted of a possible genocide during the civil war included Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died (1971), Chinua Achebe’s There was a Ccountry: A Personal History of Biafra (2012). Some social media content writers and commentators such as Prof. Ujuh Anya have no doubt that Nigeria committed genocide in cahoots with the British. but focused their analysis of the issue exclusively on the role Nigeria played without examining the role Biafra played in precipitating some of the consequences of the blockade. Obinna Chukwunenye Nweke explored the role social media played in generating the debate on genocide during the Nigerian civil war in his study Hunger as a Weapon of War: Biafra, Social Media and the Politics of Famine Remembrance (2023, March 1). Maureen Eke in an ongoing research study Biafran Genocide: War Trauma, and Genocide of Indigenous People (n.d.), examines the violence perpetrated by Nigeria against the Igbo people during and after the Nigerian civil war. Morgan Ogbonna and Charles Akpuh attempted to verify the genocide question in their publication titled The Nigerian Civil War and the Question of Genocide (2025).

The Purpose of This Essay

Thus, the purpose of this essay is to examine whether the naval blockade instituted by Nigeria during the civil war resulted in genocide, and if so, determine the roles Nigerian and Biafran leadership played in contributing to the effect. To accomplish the goal, it is argued here that it is simplistic and propagandistic to blame only one side and not the other in a conventional war involving Nigeria and Biafra without analyzing the events which occurred as the war dragged on. It is further argued that if ‘genocide’ took place because of a naval blockade during the civil war, Biafran authorities were as equally responsible as Nigerian authorities in prolonging the war, thereby increasing starvation of the civilian population. To enhance the understanding of the subject matter, it is essential to define and explain three important theories and concepts. They are genocide, just war doctrine, and conventional and unconventional warfare. Again, it should be noted that this study is focused on the question of whether genocide took place as a result of the naval blockade during the Nigerian – Biafran War.

What is Genocide?

The Genocide Convention of 1948 defines geocide as “specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” These acts include “killing members of such a group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group,” (UN Office of Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, n.d.). It is based on this UN definition that some Nigerians concluded that Nigeria committed genocide against Igbos. However, to draw a conclusion that the naval blockade of the coast resulted in Nigeria committing genocide, it is necessary to examine the moral and ethical justifications for the actions that precipitated it. Thus, just war theory is probably the best tool in determining the justification and conduct in fighting a war.

Just War Doctrine

The just war doctrine provides a moral and legal framework for evaluating whether war is justifiable and how it should be conducted. This doctrine is applied through three concepts. The first is jus ad bellum which determines the justification for fighting a war. The second is Jus in bello which determines whether a war is conducted ethically. The third is jus post bellum which deals with the treatment of the vanquished after a war.

Under Jus ad bellum concept, the justification for fighting a war includes factors such as the need to stop aggression, to correct wrong, the authority to declare war, the reason of state to protect vital interests, and the hope of success in fighting a war. Thus, to fight, it is necessary to pay attention to these factors in order to determine whether it is justifiable to do so. In terms of justification for fighting the Nigerian – Biafran War, the question is whether it was justified for Nigeria and Biafra to fight the civil war. The Nigerian government justified the war as necessary to ensure national unity and the territorial integrity of the state. On the other hand, the Biafran government justified the need to fight to achieve self-determination and ensure the protection of lives since the Igbo people faced danger in Nigeria following the massacre of thousands of them in Northern Nigeria.

In jus in bello, factors such as the conduct of warfare as determined by whether it is a limited or total war, issues of proportionality and discriminate means are considered. Proportionality requires that the casualties and other evils of war suffered by both sides should not outweigh the good achieved by war (Johnson, pp. 101-110, 123). Discriminate means deals with the treatment of noncombatants. This requires that civilians should not be intentionally targeted during war. As a result, civilian casualties can only be tolerated as collateral damage following an attack on a legitimate target. Proportionality also weighs in evaluating the tactics and weapons being used in fighting a war. Thus, the issue of the justifiability of the Nigerian naval blockade to prevent food and supplies from getting into Biafra falls under the concept of jus in bello. Likewise, the starvation and death of civilians following the naval blockade falls under the concept of discriminate means. In other words, should Nigeria and or Biafra bear responsibility for the actions that followed the naval blockade?

Under jus post bellum, factors such as the treatment of the vanquished, peace and reconciliation are considered. Thus, the treatment of prisoners of war, the treatment of the civilian population, and the effort to resettle and rehabilitate the population are taken into consideration in determining the justifiability of conduct following the end of war.

Thus, both the concept of genocide and the doctrine of just war can be applied to the Nigerian civil war to determine whether both Nigeria and Biafra adhered to ethical and legal principles in fighting the civil war (Ogbonna and Akpuh, 2025).

Thus, to determine the justifiability of the naval blockade and whether genocide took place or not and if so, which side is most likely to be held liable, it is necessary to examine the conduct of the war. Why is it necessary to examine the roles played by both the Nigerian and Biafran authorities in prosecuting the war? The reason is that it takes two sides to fight a war. Moreover, both sides contributed to the events which took place before and during the war, resulting in the deployment of naval blockade by Nigeria.

The Difference Between Conventional and Unconventional Warfare

To further determine the justifiability of fighting a war, it is necessary to know the difference between a conventional military force and an unconventional military force. A conventional military force is a regular standing army which uses direct state-to-state and or force-to-force battle against its opponent. A conventional force is always state sponsored; hence, its fighters wear uniforms to show that it is a regular military organization that relies on standardized military weaponry and follows stipulated rules of war. It is answerable to a recognizable or legitimate political authority and has a chain of command structure. The primary purpose of a conventional warfare is to destroy the enemy’s or opponent’s ability to fight by overwhelming it with a superior force (Fabian, 2021, April 5). On the other hand, an unconventional military force is a non-traditional military group or organization that uses indirect means, including guerrilla tactics, subversion, covert operations, insurgency, assassinations, special operations, diversion and asymmetrical warfare (Fowler, 2019, November 4).

The members of a conventional force must always wear uniforms to identify themselves as members of a regular force while members of a non-conventional force do not necessarily have to wear a unform. A conventional force cannot mix or hide with the civilian population during war while an unconventional force often mixes with the civilian population to confuse the opponent. However, increasingly, in the modern era, some unconventional forces have metamorphosed into regular forces by wearing uniforms and fighting as regular forces. The Hezbollah military organization in Lebanon is a good example of a non-conventional force that is transitioning into a conventional force. Having identified some pertinent theories and concepts dealing with war, it is now appropriate to systematically examine whether Nigeria committed genocide or not.

The Events, Circumstances and Actions Taken By Nigeria and Biafra that Impacted the Nigerian Civil War

Both Nigerian and Biafran authorities adopted policies and took actions that instigated armed confrontation resulting in the deployment of a naval blockade.

First, when a political disagreement remains unresolved, the parties in conflict prepare for war to resolve the matter by force. To do so, both sides generally develop strategies and tactics necessary to overwhelm the other side. Therefore, as Nigeria and Biafra prepared to fight, the political and military leadership of both sides developed strategies and military tactics necessary to sustain the war and defeat the opponent. Consequently, Nigeria had its plans to fight and defeat Biafra, with the hope of forcing it to reintegrate with Nigeria and Biafra had its plans to defeat Nigeria and gain independence or separate from Nigeria as a sovereign state.

Perhaps, to counter the creation of 12 states by Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon on May 27, 1967, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared secession of the Eastern Region as the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967, and insisted on ensuring its self-determination. The differences in perception by the two leaders and their associates led to the Nigerian Civil war. Thus, the Nigerian – Biafran War was declared by the legitimate political authorities of Nigeria and Biafra since the leaders made pronouncements to that effect. Nigeria insisted on reunifying the country and ensuring its territorial integrity and Biafra insisted on gaining self-determination. Thus, under the just war doctrine, the Nigerian and Biafran authorities bore responsibility for declaring the war and leading the war effort.

Second, part of the strategies and tactics utilized by both sides included using financial and economic means to weaken the military capability of the other side. Based on the strategies and tactics it developed to achieved self-determination, the Eastern Nigerian government, which later became the Republic of Biafra, was the first to deploy financial and economic weapons against Nigeria prior to the outbreak of hostilities. How? As the disagreement between the Nigerian government and the Eastern Nigerian government deepened over the terms of the Aburi Conference, the governor of the Eastern Region, Lt. Col. Ojukwu rejected Decree #8 that the federal side enacted to discourage secession and ordered in March 1967 that federal revenues collected in the region, especially oil royalties from Shell BP and other oil companies should not be remitted to the Federal Government but be deposited in the Eastern Nigerian treasury (Akinbode, 2025, May 30). This was followed by massive civilian demonstrations in Port Harcourt to prevent Nigerian oil tankers from loading crude oil in Brass and Bonny. Hence, Nigerian ships which came to load crude oil were forced to return to Lagos without crude oil from the Eastern Region. Thus, the Eastern Nigerian leadership intended to shipwreck Nigeria’s economy which depended on oil resource.

The seizure of federal revenues by the Eastern Nigerian Government laid the motivation for Nigeria to institute a naval blockade to prevent the Republic of Biafra from gaining access to the sea. It also compelled Nigeria to establish a marine military division to quickly recapture the Niger Delta/South-South region and gain control of the oil wealth. As a result, the 3rd Marine Commando Division was established to facilitate the capture of the oil region and deprive Biafra of the ability to control the oil wealth as well as gain access to the sea. This Nigerian tactic was proportionate to the Biafran seizure of federal revenues and the prevention of crude oil shipment by federal ships.

Third, having realized that Nigeria had instituted a naval blockade against its access to the sea, the Biafran leadership had ample opportunity to develop countermeasures to neutralize or negate the effect and ensure the availability of food supplies to its population. The fact that Biafran authorities failed to develop a counterplan to the blockade meant that they rushed the declaration of Biafran secession without sufficient preparation for the consequences. In other words, it was inappropriate for Biafra to fight a conventional war without making adequate preparation to get supplies and food. Thus, Nigeria could not be blamed for the Biafran failure to develop countermeasures to get food supplies for its population. At least, it would have established a marine force to counter the naval blockade.

Fourth, the Biafran inability to develop alternative plans to get food supplies meant that it violated the jus ad bellum concept of just war by rushing to declare secession without making sufficient preparation to fight the war and sustain its population through the production of food. Nigeria cannot be blamed for the Biafran declaration of secession at the time it did without planning to obtain supplies and food for its civilian population.

Fifth, Biafra contributed to the massive starvation of civilians in the sense that it opted to fight the war conventionally. This meant that it fought Nigeria directly by engaging in face to face or toe to toe military action. By adopting a conventional mode of fighting, Biafra established itself as a state that was capable of not only defending its territorial integrity but also taking care of its citizens. In other words, Biafra took responsibility for taking care of its citizens since it decided to fight the war conventionally. It is meaningless to blame Nigeria when Biafra adopted conventional warfare, thereby assuring its citizens and the world that it could protect its territory and provide for the people.

Thus, Nigeria would have been held totally liable if Biafra had fought the war unconventionally. Why? When a military force adopts an unconventional method of fighting, it cannot be held legally responsible for the feeding of an entire population since it operates informally as a non-state actor. For instance, Boko Haram cannot be held responsible for taking care of the residents/citizens of Borno State because it is an unconventional force. On the other hand, Nigeria is totally responsible for all the citizens in Borno State because Nigeria operates as a state and Boko Haram operates as a non-state. Biafra operated as a state, thereby holding itself accountable to the security of its citizens. Consequently, it cannot argue that Nigeria mounted naval blockade to prevent it from obtaining food supplies through Nigerian territory while fighting and killing Nigerian troops in the war to achieved self-determination.

Of course, this does not mean that the leaders of an unconventional force cannot be held responsible for committing crimes against humanity and war crimes if they violate just war principles and the Geneva Convention. In fact, many political and military commanders of non-state armed groups have been arrested and prosecuted for war crimes for brutalizing and killing civilians by the International Criminal Court (ICC). For instance, former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic was found guilty of genocide for the murder of more than 7500 Muslim men and boys in the 1992 -1995 Bosnian War (“Radovan Karadzic: Former Bosnian Serb leader,” (2016, March 24). Other personalities who were caught, tried and found guilty of committing genocide and other war crimes in the Yugoslavian conflicts included military commander Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstic, a Bosnian Serb doctor Milan Kovacevic, and so forth (PBS Frontline, (n.d.).

In Africa, some political and military leaders of non-state armed groups who have been convicted of war crimes included Commander Dominic Ongwen of the Sinia Brigade of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Bosco Ntaganda, former leader of Union of Congolese Patriots of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who was convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the Commander-in-Chief of the Union of Congolese Patriots who was convicted of war crimes and the recruitment of children into his armed group. Other Africans who have been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity included Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb), Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, Alfred Yekatom, German Katanga, former President of Sudan, Omar al Bashire. These are only a few of the number of Africans who led armed groups and were charged for war crimes and prosecuted by the ICC. However, in the case of the Nigerian civil war, it was the responsibility of the Biafran state to provide food for its citizens while fighting a conventional war against Nigeria and vice versa.

Sixth, since both Nigeria and Biafra fought the war conventionally, there is no doubt that both sides developed military strategies and tactics to defeat or overwhelm the other, as indicated earlier. For Nigeria, a naval blockade was one of the tactics deployed to force Biafra to capitulate so that the war does not drag on. This is understandable since no country would like to fight an endless war. Hence, countries which are fighting a war deploy tactics that might contribute to defeating the opponent to end the war quickly and reduce the cost and suffering. As a result, in almost every conventional war, various forms of economic tactics are deployed, including naval blockades and economic sanctions. Therefore, it was not unusual for Nigeria to mount naval blockade as a tactic to facilitate quick victory by forcing Biafra to surrender or sue for negotiation to end the conflict. Nigerian military rulers rationalized that economic and food hardship would compel Biafran military authorities to call an end to the war but that did not take place. The mass starvation did not persuade Biafran authorities to call for an end to the war, instead, they continued to fight, thereby, exposing its citizens to hunger and death.

There are historical instances to cite to show how states use economic and financial resources to force their opponents to give up or negotiate an end to a conflict. The United States has mounted economic sanctions against Cuba since October 19, 1960, during President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration to force it to change its political system. Cuba responded by refusing to give in to the sanctions by developing countermeasures to overcome the sanction. By refusing to comply with U.S. demands, Cuba was and continues to be totally responsible for ensuring that its citizens survive the sanctions and not the US. Likewise, North Korea has suffered from global economic sanctions for over seventy years. First, the US mounted total sanctions against the country in 1950. The United Nations joined the US to initiate comprehensive sanctions against North Korea in 2006 (Davenport, January 2022). By refusing to comply with the demand to liberalize its governmental system and stop its nuclear bomb program, it is solely responsible for maintaining its territorial integrity and sustaining its citizens’ wellbeing. It cannot blame the world for the suffering of its citizens since it does not want to comply with the demands of the world.

Since Biafra refused to capitulate despite the hunger that severely affected the civilian population as food supplies dwindled, Nigeria cannot be blamed for the Biafran continuation of the war. Biafran leaders knew that mass starvation was taking place, yet they continued to insist on fighting the war. Under the just war doctrine, if the political authority of a state at war continues to insist on fighting while its civilian population is suffering massively from hunger and dying in the process, the leadership of that state could be held responsible for starving its own population.

Seventh, to avoid being held responsible for causing deaths of thousands or millions of people due to starvation, it is always the case that military commanders of conventional forces often surrender when they realize that they are running out of weapons, equipment and food. For instance, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union during the 2^nd World War in 1941, and Soviet commanders at the war front realized that they could not continue to fight effectively since the Germans had blocked their means of getting reinforcement and supplies, they surrendered to save the lives of their soldiers. Hence, hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers surrendered to the German forces. For instance, in the Bialystok – Minsk front in July 1941, hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were encircled by German forces and they surrendered. In Smolensk front, German encirclement led to the surrendering of thousands of Soviet troops. In Kiev in September 1941, about 600,000 Soviet troops either surrendered or were killed. On the Vyazma – Bransk front in October 1941, 600,000 Soviet troops surrendered to the German forces (Royde-Smith, 2026, June 15).

When the tide of war changed as the German forces advanced to capture Moscow and Stalingrad (St. Petersburg), they fought very hard but could not capture Moscow and retreated. In Stalingrad, about 300,000 German troops of the Sixth Army were encircled and destroyed. About 91,000 German troops surrendered in February 1943, including 22 generals. It should be noted that even German Field Marshal Frederich Wilhem Ernst Paulus surrendered on January 31, 1943, in Stalingrad when he realized that German forces had been surrounded and they lacked food and resources to continue fighting. He ordered his generals to stop fighting even though Adolf Hitler had commanded him to continue fighting. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had 3 million German troops as prisoners of war (Hanson, 2020. It should also be noted that in the First Persian Gulf War (1991- 1992), when President Saddam Hussien realized the overwhelming nature of the international force that was mobilized against its occupation of Kuwait, he ordered Iraqi troops to withdraw. Thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered in realization that they could not overcome the international force led by the United States (McDonald, 1999). Therefore, Biafran authorities would have called for a negotiated end to the conflict and save lives when they realized that the Nigerian naval blockade was causing massive hunger among civilians, but they failed to do so.

Eighth, Isaac Adaka Boro, Samuel Owonaro, Nottingham Dick, and their colleagues declared the Niger Delta Republic (NDR) on February 23, 1966. The declaration of secession was a declaration of war against Nigeria. Hence, Nigeria reacted by sending troops and Mobile Police Force to the Niger Delta to stop the secession. Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the military governor of the Eastern Region dispatched Nigerian troops on behalf of the Federal Government to squash the secession. Isaac Boro and members of the Niger Delta Volunteer Service (NDVS) used unconventional war strategy to fight. However, as the leader of the NDVS, he knew that he did not have the military capability to defeat Nigeria and he did not want the civilian population to suffer for the actions of the NDVS. As a result, through persuasion of Ijaw leaders, he surrendered and ended the conflict after twelve days. Thus, Isaac Boro and his colleagues adhered to the concept of proportionality and discriminate means of the fust war doctrine by surrendering and bearing responsibility for declaring the secession of the Niger Delta. He and his colleagues were sentenced to death for committing treason but was pardoned by Gen. Yakubu Gowon.

A little more than a year after sending Nigerian troops to squash Boro’s secession, Lt. Col. Ojukwu too declared secession on May 30, 1967. Thus, his declaration of secession amounted to a declaration of war against Nigeria, just as Isaac Adaka Boro did. However, his actions resulted in a bloody civil war that claimed about 1 to 2 million lives. Unlike Isaac Boro who surrendered to reduce the suffering of the people, Lt. Col. Ojukwu did not surrender or call for the cessation of hostilities as hunger bit deeper in Biafra. He continued to fight on, and the prolongation of the war caused more deaths due to hunger and suffering. It is indeed ironic that Isaac Boro and his colleagues who surrendered were sentenced to death during Maj. Gen. Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi regime for committing treason and Lt. Col. Ojukwu and Biafran leaders who committed treason did not face any trial after so many people lost their lives. Thus, Isaac Boro and Lt. Col. Ojukwu committed the same offence but ended up with different outcomes.

Ninth, it should not be forgotten that before the war erupted, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu stated boldly that “no power in Black Africa could defeat Biafra,” (Nwokeji, 1994, December 26). The statement indicated that Biafran authorities were fully equipped and ready to fight a conventional war. By making such a statement, it meant that the Republic of Biafra had strategized and planned effectively to reinforce its military capability and provide for the wellbeing of Biafran citizens. Since he asserted that no power in Black Africa could defeat Biafra, then why blamed Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and other Nigerian leaders for the Biafran inability to counter Nigerian naval blockade and stop starvation from taking place?

Tenth, it should be recalled that some Biafran military officers and a civilian diplomat felt that the war was not winnable and suggested the need to negotiate an end to the conflict around August or September 1967. They included Maj. Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Maj. Philip Alale, and Mr. Sam Agbam. The suggestion for a possible negotiation to end the war to stop the suffering of civilians was treated as a treasonable offence and they were hurriedly tried, found guilty and executed on September 27, 1967 (Oliver, 2014, July 13). Lt. Col Victo Banjo met the same fate for suggesting ideas that did not meet the expectations of the Biafran leadership. The fact that these officers knew very early that the war was not winnable and suggested a possible negotiation with Nigeria to end the conflict meant that Biafran authorities did not care much about the suffering of the civilians. As a result, Biafra continued to fight the war as hunger crept in and claimed many lives. The fact that the suggestion for a negotiated end to the war was not heeded by Biafran authorities meant that they were directly responsible for causing starvation by prolonging the war. It is inappropriate to blame Nigeria for genocide when Biafran authorities did not pay much attention to the plight of the civilians who were dying of starvation for lack of food. As stated earlier, it is the responsibility of the political authorities in a war situation to ensure that civilians do not die unnecessarily. Under the just war doctrine, this falls under the principle of proportionality. In this case, Biafran authorities were willing to tolerate a large proportion of civilian deaths from hunger by continuing to fight. Otherwise, the Biafran head of state would have accepted the suggestion made by Maj. Ifeajuna and his colleagues to lay the groundwork for ending the war in late 1967. Likewise, the principle of discriminate means was also violated by the Biafran authorities for disregarding the massive hunger and death that were taking place as the war dragged on.

In terms of strategic thinking, the best time that Biafran authorities would have made effort to end the war was when Biafran forces captured the Mid-West region on August 9, 1967. The occupation of the region strengthened Biafra’s bargaining position. Thus, if the Biafran leadership had listened to Maj. Ifeajuna and his colleagues and quickly laid the framework to end hostilities, fewer deaths would have taken place. Unfortunately, the Biafran leadership missed such a great strategic opportunity. Luckily, a second opportunity to negotiate from the position of strength occurred again when Biafran forces recaptured Owerri on April 25, 1969. Unfortunately, the Biafran leadership did not use the opportunity to negotiate an end to the war. The two failures meant that Biafran authorities wanted to continue fighting even though they knew that the war was not winnable. The failure to seize the opportunity to act to end the conflict could be said to have violated the principles of proportionality and discriminate means.

Eleventh. It should be noted that the Nigeria Military Government agreed to reduce the impact of the naval blockade by negotiating with international humanitarian organizations to open daily air and road corridors to allow food supplies into Biafra. The humanitarian organizations which negotiated with Nigeria included the Joint Church Aid (JCA), led by the Council of Churches and Caritas Internationalis, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Concern Worldwide, and other national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which negotiated for road corridors and daily mercy flights to drop food but the Biafran leader and some Biafran miliary commanders rejected the offer, fearing that such corridors would have enabled the Nigerian military to penetrate Biafran defenses and threaten the Biafran state. The Biafran leadership raised objection to the idea of road corridors and daily mercy flights on the ground that the food and medicine could be poisoned by the Nigerian military. The leadership also opposed the suggestion for daily flights on the ground that such arrangement could have provided opportunity for Nigeria to bombard Biafran positions (Bello, 2021, June 21). Instead, Biafran authorities preferred the risky night flights that brought relief materials from Sao Tome and other places. Some analysts believed that Biafran authorities objected to the road corridors and daily mercy flights because the two options would have made it difficult for Biafra to clandestinely obtain arms to fight the war. On the other hand, Nigeria objected to the night flights on the ground that such flights would have allowed Biafra to import arms. It should be noted that when a Swedish Red Cross plane was shot down or crashed in 1969, Nigerian authorities found out that the plane was piloted by mercenaries and criticized the humanitarian organizations for allowing mercenaries to fly in arms (Adekilekun, 2026, January 12). Nigeria blamed the clandestine flights for prolonging the war and increasing suffering and death.

Twelfth, it should be recalled that the situation became unbearable in Biafra to the extent that Chief/Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe too was terrified of the horror that was befalling civilians as starvation, kwashiorkor, and death afflicted the population while the war dragged on. Consequently, while he was a member of a Biafran diplomatic peace team to the Organization of African Union (OAU0 in Algeria in August 1969, he left the team and flew to Europe and ended in London to encourage unification of Nigeria. He met Liberian President William Tubman who arranged a meeting with Gen. Gowon. President Tubman assisted greatly in setting up the process for negotiating an end to the conflict (Duruiheoma, 2024, March 29). In fact, Dr. Zik visited most of the states’ capitals in Nigeria and spoke about ending the war and establishing conditions for reconciliation. The fact that Dr. Azikiwe opposed continuing the war clearly showed that the Biafran authorities were liable for bearing responsibility for causing mass starvation. Otherwise, they would have done what many political leaders and military commanders have done, including Isaac Boro, to surrender or negotiate an end to the conflict.

It should be noted that Col. Ojukwu even put Dr. Azikiwe under house arrest in Portugal after inviting him there. Two security men kept watching every move or action that Dr. Zik took. Dr. Azikiwe managed to slip away and flew to London. Former Senator Jim Nwobodo narrated the story:

Ojukwu had invited Zik to a meeting in Portugal and when he arrived, he detailed two security operatives around Zik. Anywhere Zik went, those men were around him, giving information about where he went, what he did and said. Zik told me he didn’t want to do that but because he didn’t know why Ojukwu should ask him to come overseas and keep two security men around him. He wasn’t a thief, he wasn’t a criminal. Why should he do that? (Duruiheoma, 2024, March 29).

Dr. Azikiwe was even accused of being a saboteur for attempting to bring an end to the conflict. It got to a point where Onisha people were accused of betraying the Republic of Biafra because both Maj. Ifeajuna and Dr. Zik the sons of Onisha. This created tension between Onitsha people and other Biafrans.

Thirteenth, did Nigeria intend to destroy, in whole or in part the Igbos? The answer is no, as far as the naval blockade is concerned. The reason is that Nigeria made sure that all civilians in the recaptured areas were duly fed and provided accommodations. Thus, if Nigeria had failed to provide food and protective accommodation to those civilians and prisoners of war, then the argument that Nigeria engaged in genocide would have been proven beyond doubt, in terms of the naval blockade. The Northern and Asaba massacres of Igbos had nothing to do with the naval blockade, which is the focus of this paper.

Fourteenth, based on the points noted above, it was obvious that Nigeria did not intend to exterminate the Igbo people by instituting a naval blockade. It wanted to end the war very quickly by compelling Biafran authorities to give up the secession, thereby minimizing the number of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the starvation and death of civilians were an unintended consequence of the delay in bringing the war to an end (Ohadike, 1994). Nigeria demonstrated that it did not want to exterminate the Igbos by first initiating a police action to persuade Biafran authorities to stop the secession. The Biafran resistance to the police action led to a full-blown war.

Fifteen, it was widely reported that a sizable proportion of food supplies that got into Biafra were allegedly diverted to feed the military and not sufficiently distributed to the civilian population to mitigate starvation. The allegation was magnified when Biafra surrendered on January 15, 1970, and many of the soldiers, especially the officers, looked well-fed while the civilian population looked emaciated and sick.

Summary and Conclusion.

First, it was the Eastern Nigerian authorities which initiated a financial and economic sanction against Nigeria when federal revenues in the Eastern Region were seized and deposited in the region’s treasury instead of being sent to the federal treasury. Second, Nigeria responded by instituting a naval blockade as a countermeasure to weaken Biafran ability to sustain its military capability. The blockade inadvertently also resulted in stopping food supplies to Biafra through the sea. Third, Nigeria hoped to cripple the Biafran ability to continue fighting by instituting the blockade so that Biafra would sue for a negotiated end to the conflict. Contrary to the Nigerian expectation, Biafra insisted on fighting even though the food situation was increasingly unbearable as millions of civilians starved and many died. Fourth, Biafran authorities failed to call for an end to the conflict even though they knew that Biafra could not win the war. The failure to initiate a plan to end the conflict tended to violate both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello concepts of the just war doctrine because the benefit of continuing to fight was outweighed by the massive suffering that took place due to starvation. Fifth, some Biafran officers who realized that the war was not winnable called for a negotiated settlement of the conflict to stop mass starvation but were arrested, hurriedly tried for treason and executed for supposedly betraying the Biafran cause. The execution of those officers meant that Biafran authorities did not pay sufficient attention to the starvation that was afflicting the civilian population. The failure to pay attention to mass starvation was a violation of the principle of jus in bello. Sixth, when Chief/Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe changed his perspectives about Biafra and decided to lay the groundwork for a negotiated end to the war, Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu and some Biafran officials viewed him as a traitor. Hence, he was put under surveillance and he managed to escape to Europe. Thus, the Biafran opposition to Dr. Azikiwe’s peace efforts showed a violation of the just war doctrine and encouraged the perpetuation of mass starvation and death. It was Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, working through Liberian President Wiliam Tubman who helped to lay the groundwork for a negotiated end to the Nigerian – Biafran war and not the leadership of Biafra. Seventh, perhaps, unintended, it was the Biafran leadership which encouraged mass starvation and death of hundreds of thousands of civilians by refusing to acknowledge that the war was not winnable yet continued to fight thereby prolonging the suffering in Biafra.

In conclusion, Nigeria did not show or demonstrate any effort to exterminate the Igbos or engage in genocide through naval blockade. It first initiated a police action to persuade Biafran authorities from seceding. The Biafran resistance to the police action led to a full-blown war. As the war progressed, Nigerian authorities even agreed to allow humanitarian organizations to carry out daily mercy flights to supply foods to Biafra. Nigeria also agreed to open road corridors to allow food supplies, but the Biafran leadership rejected the plans and opted to go with clandestine night flights which included the supply of weapons as well as food. Consequently, Biafran authorities seemed to bear a greater responsibility in creating an environment which prolonged the war, thereby contributing to severe starvation and deaths of many civilians.

References

Adekilekun, A. (2026, January 12). Biafra airlift shock: The night flights that changed war, faith, and survival. Historical Nigeria. The Night Flights That Changed War, Faith, and Survival.

Ayorinde, A. (2025, May 30). Why Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967.Historyville. Why Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967 – HistoryVille.

Bello, T. (2021, June 21). Ojukwu’s Biafra: Relief corridor, arms smuggling, and broken diplomacy in the Nigerian civil war. War & Society: Vol 40, No 3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07292473.2021.1942625.

Davenport, K (2022, January). U.N. Security Council resolutions on North Korea. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/un-security-council-resolutions-north-korea.

Duruiheoma, D. (2024, March 29). How Zik ended Biafra war, by Nwobodo. The nation. https://thenationonlineng.net/how-zik-ended-biafra-war-by-nwobodo/#google_vignette.

Eke, M. (n.d.). Biafran genocide: War, trauma, and genocide of indigenous people. Oceanic Conference on International Studies. Biafran Genocide: War, Trauma, and Genocide of Indigenous People – 2025 OCIS.

Fabian, S., 2021, April 5). Irregular versus conventional warfare: A dichotomous misconception. modern war.

Fowler, M. (2019, November 4). The rise of the present unconventional character of warfare. The Strategy Bridge.

D. C. Ohadike, (1994). Anioma; A Social history of the western Igbo people” Athens: Ohio University Press.

Hanson, V. D. (2020). The Second World Wars: How the first global conflict was fought and won. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, J. T. (2016). Just war tradition and the restraint of war, Princeton University Press.

Lee, Y. S. (2018). International isolation and regional inequality: Evidence from sanctions on North Korea. Journal of Urban Economics, 103, pp. 34 – 51.

McDonald, J. A. (1999). After Desert Storm: The United States Army and the reconstruction of Kuwait. Department of the Army. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Nweke, O. C. (2023, March 1). Hunger as a weapon of war: Biafra, social media and the politics of famine remembrance. Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2023.2182283#abstract

Nwokeji, G. U. (1994, December 26). The necessity of the Biafran war. Google Group. https://groups.google.com/g/usaafricadialogue/c/9b4QZDOaFhM.

Ogbonna, M. and Akpuh, C. (2025). The Nigerian civil war and the question of genocide. Nigerian Journal of Arts and Humanities, Vol. 5 No 2.

Oliver, B. (2014, July 13). Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Commonwealth Games gold to facing a firing squad. The Guardian.

PBS Frontline. (n.d.). Indicting the leaders. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/karadzic/trial/indicted.html.

Radovan Karadzic: Former Bosnian Serb leader. (2016, March 24). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19960285.

Royde-Smith, J. (2026, June 15). Later actions in Operation Barbarossa. Britannica. Operation Barbarossa – Nazi Invasion, Soviet Defenses, Consequences | Britannica.

The U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Manual. (2011, March 3). U.S. Army.

United Nations Office of Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). Definition of genocide and related crimes. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition.

The Oyo Schoolchildren Abduction: Taken from the Playbooks of the Chibok Girls and Kankara Students’ Abductions

By Priye S. Torulagha

A critical examination of the circumstances surrounding the Oyo school children and teachers’ abduction in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State and the explanations provided by government officials pertaining to the way in which the victims were rescued creates doubt about the veracity of the entire kidnap story. The Incredulity of the story is buttressed by the eerie resemblance between the Oyo children and teachers’ abduction and the abductions of the students of Chibok Government Girls Secondary School and Kankara Government Science Secondary School. In other words, the kidnapping and release of the Oyo school children seemed to have been taken from the playbooks of the abductions of the Chibok girls and Kankara students.

Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to accomplish three goals: (1) to interrogate the narrative being spread about the rescue of the Oyo school children, (2) to determine whether the Oyo children were rescued or released, and (3) to compare the similarities of the Oyo kidnapping with those of the Chibok Government Girls Secondary School and Kankara Government Science Secondary School. To do so, the following arguments are presented and questions are posed: (1) The narrative concerning the kidnapping and subsequent rescue of the Oyo school children appeared to be staged to generate political impact. (2) The motive behind the kidnapping appeared to be modeled after the April 2014 Chibok girls’ abduction. (3) The official explanation provided for the victims’ rescue seemed similar to the explanation given for the rescue of Kankara students that were abducted during Buhari’s administration. (4) Where are the pictures of the captured kidnappers? (5) If there is no picture of the abductors, it means that the victims were released through negotiation. 6. If there is no picture of the captured abductors, it means that ransom was paid to release the abductees. (7) The story does not add up. The arguments are used as a rubric to examine the subject matter.

1. The Narrative Concerning the kidnapping and Subsequent Rescue of the Oyo School Children Appeared to be Staged to Generate Political Impact

The abduction of the Oyo schoolteachers and children took place after Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State announced his plan to contest for the presidency in 2027. Governor Makinde stated “For seven years, we didn’t witness anything like this in Oyo State. I declared to run for the presidency of Nigeria at four o’clock, and by 9 a.m. the following morning, the children were abducted”(Adeduyite, 2026, July 10), The children were swiftly taken away without detection by security authorities. Then, as soon as he spoke about the abduction of the school children following a meeting with Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State, the presidency suddenly announced the rescue of the kidnapped victims.

After the announcement of the rescue, a video of the school teachers and children who are cleanly dressed appeared on television. The victims thanked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu without thanking the governor and the traditional leaders of the state. They repeatedly referred to the president as a father. The intensity of the greeting creates the psychological feeling that the kidnapping and the supposed rescuing of the children were choreographed to boost reelection campaign for President Ahmed Bola Tinubu. Some members of the All Progressives Congress (APC) party used the release of the victims as a basis for launching APC campaign to support President Tinubu’s reelection bid.

Due to the suspicious nature of the abduction, Governor Seyi Makinde called on the international community, especially the United Nations and humanitarian organizations to investigate the abduction and rescue of the Oyo school children and their teachers. He stated: “

Circumstances surrounding this incident are sufficiently grave and unusual to warrant independent scrutiny. I therefore, with a full sense of responsibility, as the executive governoy of Oyo State, call on the appropriate international human rights and accountability mechanism, including those within the United Nations system, to closely examine the fact surrounding these abductions (Onah, 2026, July 13).

Perhaps, he does not want the fate that befell President Goodluck Jonathan to befall him following the kidnapping of the Chibok girls in 2014. It should be noted that the Chibok girls’ abduction was designed to shipwreck President Jonathan’s presidency. Additionally, the governor wants to ensure that the facts of the case are properly verified and documented. The presidency and the National Assembly responded to the governor’s call for international investigation in a frightened manner as if the world would fall apart if such investigation were to take place.

2. The Motive Behind the Kidnapping Appeared to be Modeled after the April 2014 Chibok Girls’ Abduction

It appeared that the abduction of the Oyo school children was designed to create political impact that is favorable to the president and the APC. Perhaps, the intended purpose was to discourage Governor Seyi Makinde from running for the presidency in 2027. In reflection, the plot to score a political point or gain political advantage is like the plan that was developed to score a political point or gain advantage against President Goodluck Jonathan. Thus, the plot to abduct the students at Government Girls Secondary School (GGSS) in Chibok was intended to destroy President Goodluck Jonathan’s reelection bid by portraying him as weak and incapable of managing the security situation in the country. Consequently, the Chibok girls’ incident was globalized very quickly by the perpetrators of the act to stigmatize President Jonathan. Thus, the Oyo school children’s abduction appeared to have been taken from the playbook of the Chibok girls’ abduction scheme

However, it should be noted that former Governor Peter Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti State and Mr. Sunday Adeniyi Adeyemo, otherwise known as Sunday Igboho, seemed to believe that the Oyo school children and their teachers were kidnapped to embarrass and destroy the reelection bid of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Mr. Fayose stated in an interview, “I can sometimes believe that the abduction at Oyo School was orchestrated by the Oyo State government to blackmail President Tinubu,” (Adesina, 2026, June 2). On his own part, Mr. Adeyemo stated:

They are trying to do what they did to Goodluck Jonathan to President Bola Tinubu. It is all game. It is all politics. Because if it’s not politics, we asked to face the terrorists that kidnapped schoolchildren in Oyo but they said no. Why no? I volunteered with my people to go there (forest) but they didn’t give us the go-ahead. Leave the terrorists to shoot us. At a point, the Fulani threatened to kill the children if I made any attempt to rescue them. No problem (Abdulkabeer, 2026, June 4).

Both former Governor Fayose and Chief Adeyemo agreed that the Oyo school abduction was politically staged like the kidnapping of the Chibok girls in 2014. The government’s insistence that the children were rescued by security operatives and not released through negotiation showed that the government manipulated the information to score political points. In addition, the army insistence that the victims were released unconditionally after a security operation also tended to reinforce a desire to manipulate the information to favor the president. After the Nigerian Army indicated that the Oyo kidnap victims were rescued through security operation, the Federal Government has not released the pictures of the captured eight kidnappers who supposedly survived a shootout with security forces. Why are the pictures of the eight kidnappers being hidden from public view by the Nigerian Army (NA), Nigerian Police Force (NPF) and the Department of State Service (DSS)?

3. The Explanation Provided for the Victims’ Rescue Seemed Similar to the Explanation Given for the Rescue of Kankara Students that were Abducted during Buhari’s Administration.

As soon as the Oyo school teachers and children were supposedly rescued, Dr. Seyi Adetayo, a security expert and former DSS operative, went on the air to explain how the security forces planned and executed the rescuing of the victims. He explained: “They identified the kidnappers’ mothers, wives, children and close associates. They arrested them, recorded videos and sent them to the abductors,” (Attah, 2026, July 11). According to him, upon realizing that their family members and associates had been arrested by security agents, the kidnappers decided to release the kidnapped victims. As a result, the government did not pay any ransom for the release of the school children and teachers (Ibid.).

Apart from Dr. Adetayo’s explanation, the Nigerian Army also published a statement to explain that the Oyo school teachers and children were rescued. Lt. Col. Danjuma Jonah Danjuma, the Acting Deputy Director of 2 Division’s Public Relations, revealed that the security operation was led by Maj. Gen. C. R. Nnebeife, the General Officer Commanding (GOC) 2 Division, Ibadan. He added that the victims were rescued through a “well-coordinated operation rescued a total of 44 pupils and teachers kidnapped by terrorists from Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State on 15 May 2026,” (Dada, 2026, July 11). The narrative tended to create the impression that a firefight took place, hence, the death of a security personnel and some of the kidnappers.

However, there appears to be a contradiction between Dr. Adetayo’s explanation and that of the Nigerian Army. Dr. Adetayo tended to state that the psychological pressure following the arrest of their family members and associates forced the kidnappers to release the abductees. On the other hand, the Nigerian Army emphasized that the victims were rescued through an intense security operation. In the process of physical engagement, an army officer and some kidnappers were killed while eight were captured.

Thus, the narrative the government provided to explain the way the Oyo school children were rescued is like the narrative that the Defense Headquarters provided when 344 students of the Government Science Secondary School in Kankara, Katsina State, were released from captivity in 2020. The Defense Headquarters stated that the Kankara students were rescued through a combined military and police action. Adelani Adepegba of Punch reported, “The Defence Headquarters has claimed that troops rescued the over 300 students of Government Science Secondary School, Kankara, Katsina, abducted by bandits on December 11. The DHQ spokesman, Maj. Gen. John Enenche, in a statement on Friday, said the military has kept its promises of ensuring the rescue of the hostages” (2020, December 18). The military did not publish the pictures of the abductors, and neither did it prosecute them.

However, in contradiction to the statement made by the DHQ, Governor Aminu Masari of Katsina State revealed that Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN)was responsible for negotiating the release of the 344 Kankara students (Auwal, 2020, December 18). This meant that the military did not carry out any security operations to rescue the students, as the Defense Headquarters stated.

In the Oyo School children abduction case, as indicated above, Nigerians are informed that some of the abductors were killed and eight others were captured but neither the Nigerian Army nor the Federal Government has publicly released the pictures of the captured kidnappers.

It should be noted that the Federal Government often claimed to have used security measures to rescue abducted victims even though the victims were actually released through negotiations. For instance, in the kidnapping case involving six Al-Kadriyar sisters in early 2024 in Abuja, the Nigerian Police Force (NPF) claimed that the victims were rescued through a security operation. The family countered the police claim and stated that it paid ransom for the release of the sisters. Sheriff Al-Kadriyar, the uncle of the six sisters, explained the release of the victims by saying: “There’s nothing like rescue in this matter. We paid ransom – even though I can’t disclose how much for security reasons,” (Ukpong, 2024, January 23). It should be noted that one of the six sisters was killed.

Thus, the narrative being spread by government officials in the Oyo school children abduction case is like the narrative that was spread in the Kankara students’ case and that of the abducted six sisters in Abuja where the government claimed to have used security means to rescue the victims even though ransoms were paid to release them.

Other kidnapped cases whereby the Nigerian government claimed to have rescued abducted victims through security operations while the families of the victims countered the government claims by insisting that ransoms were paid to release their love ones included (1) the Zangon Kataf abductions in 2018 (Campbell, 2018, February 18), (2) kidnapped incidents in Kebbi and Niger states in 2025, and (3) the kidnapping of over 200 students of St Mary School in Papiri, Niger State in early 2026 (Ewokor, 2026, February 24). Apparently, the Federal Government of Nigeria has developed a pattern for claiming to have used security operations to rescue abducted Nigerians even though the victims were released through negotiated payments of ransom.

4. Where are the Pictures of the Captured kidnappers?

As stated above, in the Kankara students’ rescue operation, the Defense Headquarters did not parade or show the pictures of the abductors captured while executing the rescue operation. Nigerians at the time wondered why no pictures of the captives were shown publicly to confirm that a rescue operation had really taken place. Just like in the Kankara case, Nigeria did not show pictures of the captured abductors in the Zangon Kataf abductions in 2018, the kidnapping case involving six Al-Kadriyar sisters in early 2024 in Abuja, the Kidnapping incidents in Kebbi and Niger states in 2025, and the kidnapping of over 200 students of St Mary School in Papiri, Niger State. Following the same pattern, Nigeria has not shown the pictures of the eight abductors it captured in the Oyo School children rescue operation.

The failure of the government to parade publicly or show the pictures of the kidnappers creates serious doubt about the rescuing of the kidnapped victims. The reason is that the government of Oyo State announced that nine people, including four victims and five kidnappers died in the horrific abduction incident.

5. If there is no Picture of the Abductors, it Means that the Victims were Released through Negotiation with the Abductors

If the government, through the Nigerian Army and or the Department of State Service, fails to parade or show the pictures of the captured eight abductors, it means that the victims were released through negotiation. Dr. Kemi Olulonye alleged that the Oyo teachers and children were abducted and kept in Katsina before they were released without any rescue operation. She added that international pressure contributed to the sudden release of the Oyo school children and their teachers (Clifford, 2025, July 11).

The Nigerian military tried to convince the public by showing a video documentary of the members of the security forces mobilizing to carry out the rescuing of the Oyo children. Unfortunately, the documentary appeared to be a rehearsed and dramatized video of the effort to boost the image of Nigeria’s security forces without showing the pictures of the eight abductors who supposedly were captured during the rescue operation. Even the two or three alleged suspects who appeared in the video had their faces covered, thereby, adding to the doubt about the sincerity of the story of the rescue operation. Again, the question is, where is the pictures of the eight captured kidnappers?

Since the Presidency and the Nigerian Army have failed to show the pictures of the captured abductors, it means that the children were released through a negotiated settlement with the abductors and not rescued militarily. It is impossible to carry out a security operation without capturing the culprits.

6. If there is no picture of the captured abductors, it means that ransom was Paid to Release the Abductees

The Nigerian government denied paying any ransom for the release of the Oyo children and their teachers by explaining that it rescued them through a security operation. The explanation is not supportable because of the lack of pictures of the captured eight kidnappers. Thus, the Federal Government of Nigeria has developed a pattern in responding to allegations of paying ransom to kidnappers to release abducted victims. In almost every abduction case that the government supposedly claimed to have intervened militarily to rescue the victims, it informed the world that it did not pay ransom because it used security operations to secure the freedom of the captives. In each case, the Federal Government failed to publicize the pictures of the abductors. The failure meant that ransom was paid to free the victims.

7. The Story Does Not Add Up

Having examined the story of the abduction and rescuing of the Oyo school children and their teachers, the veracity of the rescue operation is questionable. The reason is that if the kidnappers were psychologically forced to release the victims, as Dr. Adetayo intimated, then why did a shoot-out take place to the extent that a military officer and some kidnappers died?

Moreover, the picture of the kidnapped Oyo children showed that the children appeared delighted, healthy, well-fed, and wore clean clothes as if they were not in the forest for 56 days. If the picture of the Oyo victims is compared with the picture of the abducted church victims in Ekiti State, the difference in mood and appearance is like the difference between day and night. While the victims of the Oyo abduction appeared relaxed, the victims of the Ekiti abduction appeared dirty, hungry, emaciated and could barely walk. The Ekiti victims clearly showed that they were indeed seriously victimized by their abduction while the victims of the Oyo abduction looked healthy and well-kept. Moreover, one of the Oyo victims even possessed a cell phone in the picture. Moreover, the Oyo children did not wear their school uniforms. Why?

The first picture is of the Oyo School Children that were Abducted and the second picture is that of the Ekiti church kidnapped victims.

Summary and Conclusion

1. The Oyo school children abduction was politically motivated like the 2014 Chibok girls’ abduction. (2) In the Chibok girls’ case, the purpose was to destroy President Jonathan’s chance of winning reelection. (3) In the Oyo school children abduction, the motive appeared to be to discourage Governor Seyi Makinde of Oyo State from running for the presidency in 2027.

The way the school principal and the children thanked President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and not the governor showed that the rescue was intended to boost the president’s reelection effort. It was rehearsed and staged. (4) The story of the way in which the Oyo school children were rescued is taken from the playbook of the rescue of the 344 students of Government Science Secondary School, Kankara, Katsina State. The Kankara students were supposedly rescued through military operation without showing the pictures of the abductors just as the Oyo school children have been supposedly rescued without showing the pictures of the captured kidnappers. (5) The Federal Government denied paying ransom for the release of the 344 Kankara students just as the Federal Government has denied paying ransom for the release of the Oyo children. (6) Despite the statement by the DHQs that the Kankara students were rescued, they were actually released through negotiation with the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association. It is also the case that the Oyo school children were probably released through negotiation with the kidnappers. In short, they were released and not rescued. (7) If the abductors were forced to release the abducted children because they panicked following the arrest of their family members, then what led to the shoot out that resulted in the deaths of a security personnel and some kidnappers? If they panicked and released the victims, then there was no need for a shoot-out. The explanation is not clear. (8) Thus, the victims were most probably released through negotiation and not through security operation. (9) The video being shown as evidence of the capture of the abductors is a documentary to promote the image of the security forces in the eyes of Nigerians. The video did not show the alleged suspects the way suspects are often paraded for public exposure by the military and the police in Nigeria.

In conclusion, since the national government, especially the Nigerian Army and the DSS have failed to display the pictures of the kidnappers, it means that the Oyo children and their teachers were released through negotiation with the kidnappers. The suspicion surrounding the abduction prompted Governor Seyi Makinde to call on the United Nations and international humanitarian organizations to investigate the dastardly act. The reaction of the presidency and the National Assembly to the governor’s demand for international investigation showed a panic response, thereby adding to the suspicion about what really happened. The Federal Government is obligated to publicly release the pictures of the abductors to increase the credibility of its story.

References

Abdulkabeer, A. (2026, June 4). Oyo abduction politically motivated: I will expose politicians sponsoring kidnappings in South-West soon: Igboho. Peoples Gazette. https://gazettengr.com/oyo-abduction-politically-motivated-i-will-expose-politicians-sponsoring-kidnappings-in-south-west-soon-igboho/.

Adepegba, A. (2020, December 18). We rescued Kankara schoolboys, DHS claims. Punch. https://punchng.com/we-rescued-kankara-schoolboys-dhq-claims/#google_vignette.

Adeduyite, O. (2026, July 10). Oyo school abduction came hours after my 2027 presidential declaration – Makinde. Punch. https://punchng.com/oyo-school-abduction-came-hours-after-my-2027-presidential-declaration-makinde/#google_vignette.

Attah, M. (2026, July 11). How abducted Oyo pupils, teachers were freed without ransom – Ex-DSS operative. Daily Post. https://dailypost.ng/2026/07/11/how-abducted-oyo-pupils-teachers-were-freed-without-ransom-ex-dss-operative/.

Auwal, I. (2020, December 18). How Kankara schoolboys were released. Sahelian Times. How Kankara schoolboys were released – Sahelian Times.

Campbell, J. (2021, February 18). Kidnapping and ransom payments in Nigeria. Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/articles/kidnapping-and-ransom-payments-nigeria.

Clifford, J. (2026, July 11). “There was no rescue, at least eight of the kids eating biscuit in the photos were not kidnapped’ Investigative journalist alleges. Newsweek. https://newsweekng.com/there-was-no-rescue-at-least-eight-of-the-kids-eating-biscuit-in-the-photos-were-not-kidnapped-investigative-journalist-alleges/.

Dada, P. (2026, July 11). Revealed: Details of the intense operation that ended Oyo school abduction. PM News. https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2026/05/19/revealed-how-oyo-school-kidnappers-used-insider-intel-to-execute-abductions/#google_vignette.

Ewokor, C. (February 28, 2026). Nigeria denies reports it paid ‘huge’ ransom to free pupils in mass abduction. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cewzyqjq2ygo.

Onah, V. (2025, November 28). FG did not any ransom to anybody – Senate spokesperson. Daily Post. https://dailypost.ng/2025/11/28/fg-did-not-pay-any-ransom-to-anybody-senate-spokesman/.

Onah, V. (2026, July 13). Makinde seeks UN probe into abduction of Oyo pupils, teachers. Daily Post. https://dailypost.ng/2026/07/13/makinde-seeks-un-probe-into-abduction-of-oyo-pupils-teachers/.

Ukpong, U. (2024, January 23). We paid ransom to free kidnapped Abuja sisters. – family member. The Daily Times. https://dailytimesng.com/we-paid-ransom-to-free-abuja-kidnapped-sisters-family-member.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Abracadabra Budget: Now You See it and Now You Don’t

Priye S. Torulagha

The fact that Nigeria is facing severe financial and economic problems cannot be understated. Some of the problems originate from unconventional and misleading budgeting tactics, massive financial mismanagement, and corruption perpetrated by high-level appointed and elected public officials. The anomalous financial management style is leading to the concoction of national budgets that do not reflect reality. Hence, the national budget under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu appears to be a mere smoke and mirrors, like tricks perform by a magician.

The Budget Roll Overs and Underfunding of Capital Projects

The figures presented in the annual national budgets by President Tinubu’s administration since he got into power should be accepted with a grain of salt. For instance, of the 2024 national budget figures that were approved for capital projects by the National Assembly, only 40% of the funds were distributed to various ministries, departments, and agencies for the execution of projects that were authorized by the national legislature. This meant that N10.5 trillion of the 2024 budget was rolled over to 2025 budget cycle. Likewise, of the 2025 budget allocations for capital projects that were approved by the National Assembly, only 25% of the allocations were disbursed to the appropriate government ministries, departments, and agencies while 75% of the allocations were transferred or rolled over to 2026. This means that $7.7 billion of 2025 capital project allocations were moved to 2026. Consequently, the 2026 budget cycle includes about 60% of 2024 and 75% of 2025 allocations for capital projects. This further means that the Nigerian government under President Tinubu operates multiple budgets simultaneously without the knowledge of the National Assembly and the citizens.

This is very strange since it is always the case that budget allocations are required to be spent for the year in which they were constitutionally authorized. This means that the 2024 budget allocations for capital projects would have been completely spent on the projects that were approved for in 2024, so was the allocations for capital projects in the 2025 budget. Unfortunately, in Nigeria today, the budget situation is so messed up that it is like someone is playing magic on Nigerians, hence the abracadabra.

Nigerians were not aware of the illegal transfers or roll over of funds for capital projects until Senator Aminu Waziri Tambuwal of Sokoto State made allegations that budget appropriations for capital projects for 2023, 2024, and 2025 were not spent as legally authorized and were being embezzled, did the public begin to pay attention to the budget abracadabra of the Tinubu’s administration. Thereafter, some ministers and departmental heads informed the National Assembly that they only received a tiny fraction of the funds that were allocated for capital projects. For instance, the Minister of Health and Social Welfare, Muhammad Ali Pate informed the House of Representatives Committee on Healthcare Services that “his ministry received only N36 million, about 0.02 percent of the N218 billion that was approved for capital expenditure in the 2025 budget,” (Odekina, 2026, April 4). The failure to release most of the funds that had already been approved for capital projects affected many federal ministries, departments and agencies. This is why capital projects were barely initiated and carried out in 2024 and 2025. Gift Odenika identified some ministries and departments that were short-changed by the tactical roll over of appropriated funds:

Ministry of Women Affairs which got N394.8 million released, just 0.44% of the approved capital budget of N89.8billion; Ministry of Marine & Blue Economy received 202million, about 1.7% released out of the N353 billion capital budget; Ministry of Transportation received N2.5 billion, about 1.0% out of the approved N256.7billion capital budget; Federal Ministry of Housing & Urban Development got N2.0 billion, about 2.0% of the N100billion capital budget; Federal Ministry of Water Resources got N1.0 billion, about 1.5% of the N80billion capital budget; and Ministry of Agriculture & Food Security, which got N3.0 billion out of N120billion budgeted (Odekina, 2026, April 4).

Hon. Alex Mascot Ikwechegh, who represents Aba North/Aba South Federal Constituency in Abia State, was surprised after conducting a critical review of the national budgets for 2024 and 2025 to realize the lack of expenditures on capital projects for those two years. He questioned why the national government did not spend funds on projects that had already been approved by the National Assembly. He then called for investigation to determine why the Tinubu administration failed to spend funds that were already approved for capital projects. His demand for explanation led the former Minister of Finance, Mr. Wale Edun and the Minister of State for Finance, Dr. Doris Uzoka-Anite to admit that trillions were budgeted for capital projects in 2024 and 2025 budget cycles, but the funds were not spent due to certain circumstances.

In confirming the allegation of underfunding of capital projects even though funds had been approved for their execution, the former Minister of Finance, Wale Edun revealed that significant components of the allocations for capital projects for 2024 and 2025 budgets were rolled over to the 2026 budget cycle (Ogundapo, 2025, October 9). It is predictable that a substantial portion of the 2026 budget for capital projects might also be rolled over to 2027, thereby compounding the problem of budget deficits. An analyst explained that Nigeria is suffering from “revenue shortfalls, high debt servicing obligations, competing recurrent expenditure, weak cash-flow, and weak cash management” (Odekina, 2026, April 4).

The Danger of Excessive Borrowing of Loans

Apart from the “now you see it and now you don’t see it” nature of the national budget, is the fact that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is borrowing uncontrollably from both international and domestic sources to fund his administration. It seems that every two or three months, the president submits a request to the National Assembly to seek permission to borrow more money. As a result, the administration has borrowed N159.28 trillion in three years while former President Muhammadu Buhari borrowed N75.26 trillion in eight years. When President Goodluck Jonathan left office, the total national debt was N12.60 trillion (Ibrahim, 2025, September 6). Thus, President Tinubu might win an Olympic goal medal for borrowing incessantly. He is basically borrowing to run the Federal Government of Nigeria despite the stoppage of fuel subsidy and an increase in revenue collection from the Federal Inland Revenue Service and Nigerian Customs. Administration officials tend to blame former President Buhari for creating a financial and economic situations that necessitate borrowing to make up for debt servicing.

Due to the enormity of borrowed loans, a substantial portion of the national budget is now devoted to paying or servicing the debt incurred. As a result, in 2025, more than 27% of the national budget was devoted to servicing the national debt. Currently, the national debt stands at about N159.28 billion which is about $117 bn with domestic debt accounting for N84.84trillion or $59.11bn and external debt taking N74.43 trillion or $51.85 bn of the budget. Thus, debt servicing took more from the national budget than the combined allocations for defense, education and health care in 2025 (David, 2025, October 2).

Perhaps, following the increasing cost of debt servicing, the Nigerian Army only received N1.17trn or 24.94 percent of the N4.52trn it proposed. As a result, out of the N20.56bn that was budgeted by the army for the purchasing of security equipment in 2025, only N1.46bn or 7.11 per cent was released to the army. For the Nigerian Airforce, out of N34.71bn budgeted for aircraft maintenance in 2025, only N4.85bn or 13.98 percent was received. Of the N15.75bn that was allocated for security equipment in 2025, only N5.25bn or 33.33 per cent was released to the Airforce for the purchase of equipment. Of the N298.44bn that was allocated for the purchase of defense equipment in 2025, only N19.25bn or 6.45 per cent was received (A war budget that fails troops, 2026, April 29). Thus, the Nigerian military is seriously underfunded while the country is facing severe insecurity problems.

The underfunding of the armed forces, especially in the areas of military equipment and security, is most probably responsible for the haphazard way the armed forces prosecute the anti-terrorist war. It is now clear why the Nigerian Army and the Nigerian Airforce have not been fully mobilized to crush violent herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers and jihadists who are crawling all over the country to inflict death and destruction. They do not have the appropriate military equipment and security infrastructure to effectively take the war to the terrorists. Apart from the underfunding, the military leadership has been repeatedly accused of corruption, thereby compounding the issues that prevent the Nigerian military from ensuring security and territorial integrity of the country (Nweze, 2022, September 10).

To add salt to injury, the Tinubu administration declines to conduct an audit of its financial expenditures. In other words, the administration is not transparent, accountable, or responsible in its management of the national budget. Hence, the citizens are kept in the dark about what the administration is doing with all the borrowed loans. The Nationally Assembly partially bears responsibility for encouraging the unrestrained borrowing of loans.

The Use of Crude Oil as a Collateral

Apart from the unrelenting borrowing and spending by the administration without transparency and accountability, the country’s crude oil is being used as a collateral to borrow loans from foreign sources. For instance, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) used crude oil as a pre-export financing tool to borrow $3 bn from the Afreximbank in August 2023. Again, the NNPC borrowed $3.3 bn in a scheme known as “Project Gazelle Loan. To obtain the loan, the NNPCL committed 90,000 barrels of oil per day of Nigeria’s share of crude oil production to be sold through a special arrangement. Other loan deals involving the use of crude oil as collateral include Project Yield, Project Leopard, and Eagle Export Funding. It is estimated that about 14.66 percent of Nigeria’s crude oil production was allocated for serving crude-backed oil debts in 2025. This is about N8.36 trillion of the 2025 national budget (Construction and Engineering Digest, 2026, March 2).

Do indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South know that Nigeria is inflicting economic, political, and financial damage on the oil and gas region by using the region’s oil wealth as a collateral to borrow unprecedented amounts of loans? For instance, the NNPCL pledged 272,500 barrels per day of crude oil to secure $8.86bn loan on October 4, 2024. Nigeria also pledged 164.25 million barrels of crude oil to repay other oil backed loans. Nigeria is negotiating with Saudi Arabia to use crude-for-loans totaling $5bn. It is very important for Niger Deltans to understand the perilous situation Nigeria has placed them.

The Awarding of Contracts Without Public Bidding

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu continues to take actions that contribute to his unpopularity. While Nigerians are wondering about the undefendable budget transfers or rollovers that short-change each budget year through tactical underfunding of capital projects, he adds to his financial and political problems by awarding massive contracts to Hitech Construction Company Limited , a company owned by his friend, Gilbert Chagoury, and in which his son is a major shareholder, in violation of the law concerning the awarding of federal government contracts. In a country made up of more than 230 million people, he awards most expensive capital projects to Hitech Company without allowing for public bidding. So far, he has single-handedly awarded the Lagos – Calabar Road project worth $11to $13bn to Hitech (Clifford, 2024, August 20), the Lagos Ports Renovation Project in Apapa and Tin Can project worth $700 million to Hitech Group, the Snake Island Ports Terminal Concession worth $1 bn to Hitech, and the UK – Nigeria Lagos Ports Financing Project which is worth 746 million pounds to Hitech. He did not even bother to submit budget requests to the National Assembly for approval before awarding the contracts personally. He has established a bad precedent that future presidents might follow to create and award their own self-enriching major capital project contracts to their families and friends without public bidding.

The sad part of the president’s management of the national budget is that Nigerians are increasingly powerless to prevent him from wrecking the financial and economic future of the country. The reason is that the National Assembly has failed to perform its statutory work of being the guardian of the public purse. Nigerians are paying a stiff price for the failures. Abracadabra indeed!

References

A war budget that fails troops. (2026, April 29). Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/a-war-budget-that-fails-troops/.

Clifford, J. (2024, August 20). How Tinubu’s son, and son of his Lebanese billionaire friend awarded $13bn Lagos – Calabar Highway project – OCCRP Report Newsweek.ng , https://newsweekng.com/how-tinubus-son-seyi-and-son-of-his-lebanese-billionaire-friend-awarded-13billion-lagos-calabar-highway-project-occrp-report/#google_vignette.

Construction and Engineering Digest. (2026, March 2). Crude-backed loans gulp N8.36 tn of 2025 revenue. https://cedmagazineng.com/2026/03/02/crude-backed-loans-gulped-n8-36tn-of-2025-revenue/.

David, I. (2025, October 2). Worrisome loans and high cost of debt servicing in Nigeria. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/opinion/article/worrisome-loans-and-high-cost-of-debt-servicing-in-nigeria/.

Ibrahim, Y. (2025, March 18). Tinubu awards $700m port renovation to his friend’s firm with zero experience. Economy Post. https://economypost.ng/featured/tinubu-awards-700m-port-renovation-contract-to-chagourys-firm-with-zero-experience/2025/03/18/. 

Ibrahim, Y. (2025, September 6). Tinubu debt profile: How much Nigeria borrowed since 2023? Economy Post. https://economypost.ng/government-business/revenue-and-expenditure/tinubu-debt-profile-how-much-has-nigeria-borrowed-since-2023/2025/09/06/.

Ogundapo, A. (2025, October 9). Nigeria’s govt promises to stop operating multiple budgets simultaneously. Premium Times. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/826934-nigerian-govt-promises-to-stop-operating-multiple-budgets-simultaneously.html.

Odekina, G. C. (2026, April 4). Capital Budgets without cash: How trillions approved by NASS failed to reach MDAs. Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2026/04/capital-budgets-without-cash-how-ntrillions-approved-by-nass-failed-to-reach-mdas/#google_vignette.

Nweze, K. (2022, September 10). Corruption by military responsible for Nigeria’s worsening insecurity, says ICPC. Arise News. https://www.arise.tv/corruption-by-military-responsible-for-nigerias-worsening-insecurity-says-icpc/.

The Catholic Church’s Edicts Which Justified the Conquest, Enslavement, and Colonization of Non-Christian Societies

The Catholic Church’s Edicts Which Justified the Conquest, Enslavement, and Colonization of Non-Christian Societies

By Priye S. Torulagha

It is inferable that a large segment of the global population is not conscious of the fact that Islam and Christianity are responsible for the industrial-scale, commercialized mass enslavement of people, especially Black Africans and Native Americans. For the Christian Church, sections of the Bible provided the justification for conquering, enslaving and colonizing non-believers. The Quran (Koran) also provides justification for Islamic conquest, enslavement and colonization of non-believers.

Both religions also share a biblical story about Noah and his three sons resulting in the supposed justification for the enslavement of Blacks. In Genesis 9 – 18-29, the story is told about Noah’s drunkenness and nakedness. One of his sons, Ham, saw the father drunk and naked. He told his two brothers (Shem and Japheth) about their father’s nakedness without covering him with cloth. His two brothers avoided seeing their father’s nakedness and covered him up. When Noah woke up from his drunken stupor, he cursed the son of Ham, which is his grandson, Canaan, by saying that he shall be a servant to his two brothers, Shem and Japheth. In Genesis 9:25, it is stated “Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

This story is twisted by some racists and fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims to mean that Blacks are cursed to be slaves to Whites and Asians. Why? Because of the belief that Blacks descended from Ham through Canaan while Whites and some Asians descended from Japheth and the Jews, other Semites, and some Asians descended from Shem (“What is the origin of the Japanese and Chinese Peoples? A Biblical perspective, n.d.). This story is responsible for why Black people are viewed as inferior, disrespected, and discriminated in most parts of the world. Most Black African Christians and Muslims do not realize that a statement in the Bible is responsible for the predicament Blacks faced in the world.

A Chronological Listing of the Christian Edicts which Led to Slavery

In this write up, the focus is on the Christian edicts or papal bulls which justified the conquest, enslavement and colonization of the non-Christian world.

This is an abbreviated chronological listing of the edicts which resulted in the enslavement of African people and the mass killings and destruction of Native Americans in the Americas.

1. Pope Nicholas V issued papal bull “Dum Diversas” on June 18, 1452, which declared: “We grant you (kings of Spain and Portugal) by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, countries, principalities and other property…And to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery (Browne, 2011, July 27).

2. Pope Nicholas V went further and issued the Romanus Pontifex of 1455 which gave Portugal exclusive rights to the territories along the West African coastline.

a. Thus, Portugal was given the right to invade, plunder and “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery” of non-Christian societies (Elliott & Hughes, 2019, July 19). Even Arabs felt victim to this edict and also suffered from slavery.

b. The Romanus Pontifex was an official proclamation or edict by the Christian Church, authorizing the conquest and enslavement of non-Christians.

3. Pope Alexander VI issued the “Inter Caetera in 1493.

NB: It authorized the Christian nations of Portugal and Spain to attack, conquer, loot, enslave, and colonize non-Christian territories.

4.Thus, Pope Alexander VI simply extended the decrees or edicts issued by Pope Nicholas V by dividing the non-Christian world into two and giving the Christian nations of Portugal and Spain the right to invade, pillage, conquer, and enslave the non-Christian populations of the territories.

5. Portugal was given an area stretching from the Cape Verde and running around Africa through India to China. This is why Portugal was the first country to visit the West African coastline. Spain ended up colonizing the entire Americas.

6. The Treaty of Tordesillas of June 7, 1494: Portugal felt that Spain benefited more than it in the sharing of the non-Christian world and called for a renegotiation of the division of the world. The renegotiation resulted in shifting the boundary 370 leagues or 1185 miles westward from Cape Verde. The shifting of the boundary resulted in Brazil coming under Portuguese control (Campbell, n.d.). This is why throughout Latin America, only Brazilians speak Portuguese language while other Latin Americans speak Spanish.

7. When other European countries realized that Portugal and Spain had become very rich from conquering, exploiting and colonizing various non-Christian territories, other European countries developed interest in embarking on their own effort to conquer and colonize. It was Portugal which initiated a European conference. The conference was held in Berlin, Germany, hence, the name ‘Berlin Conference.’ The Berlin Conference took place from1884 to1885, involving Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain. They eventually divided, conquered and colonized Africa. Thus, Western colonization of Africa, sections of Asia, Pacific Islands, and the Americas are a product of the Christian edicts authorizing the conquest, enslavement and colonization of the non-Christian world.

8. The Spanish Conquistadors laid waste to the indigenous population of the Americas. Native Americans also died in their millions through diseases that the European brought to the Americas, especially smallpox.

It should be noted that Portugal and Spain benefited immensely from the proclamations of the Roman Catholic popes. Thus, Portugal was the first European country to visit West Africa because it was given the power to conquer and colonize the region. Quite often, West African history books do not generally indicate why the Portuguese were the first Europeans to visit West Africa.

9. It should be noted that the Christian Church engaged in mass killings of people in Europe and encouraged the mass enslavement of Africans and Native Americans because there are sections of the Bible which justify the conquest, killing, looting, enslaving and raping. This is why in the past; it was common for ideologically committed Christians to carry out attacks against non-Christians. The Germans and Jews paid dearly during the Christian crusades, inquisitions, and the burning of suspected witches to death.

10. The “Ghetto” originated from the Christian effort to segregate non-Christians in Europe, especially in Venice Thus, the Venetian Ghetto came into being in 1516 when Christian authorities segregated the Jews in a walled island to separate them from the Christians. The model of separating the Jews from Christians was adopted in Frankfurt, Rome, and Prague by Christian authorities in the 15^th and 16^th centuries. During the 2^nd World War, the Nazis forced the Jews to live in ghettos to separate them from the German people.

Sections of the Bible which Justify Slavery, Servitude, Mass Killing, and Raping of People

In this part of the write up, various sections of the Bible which justify slavery, mass killings, sexual attacks are listed.

The sections of the Bible which justify slavery:

Exodus 21: 2-8 For Example

a. Exodus 21: 2 reads “If thou buy Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seven year he shall go out free for nothing.”

b. Exodus 21:7 reads “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

c. Exodus 21:8 reads “If she please not her master, who had betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell to a strange nation, he shall have no power…”

Sections of the Bible which Justify Sexual Enslavement

Exodus 21:7-11 deals with sex slavery
Ephesians 6: 5
Timothy 1, 6: 1-2
Luke 12: 47-48 justify beating a servant
Zechariah 14:1-2 deal with sexual enslavement

The sections of the Bible which Justify killings and Murder

Judges 21:10-24

a. Judges 21: 10 reads “And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with women and children.”

b. Judges 21: 11 reads “And this is the thing that he shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.”

Sections of the Bible that deals with Killing and Destruction

1. Deuteronomy 17:12

2. Deuteronomy 13:13-19

Deuteronomy 20: 13-17 Mass killing and destruction
Deuteronomy 22: 20-21
Chronicles 2, 15:12-13 Killing of nonbelievers
Isaiah 13:15-18 Killing of babies and rape

Thus, just as the Bible provides guidance for those seeking heavenly salvation, it also provides brutal ways of invading, conquering, destroying, killing, and sexually assaulting people. Hence, in Christian history, there have been occasions in which Christians applied biblical methods to inflict death and destruction on non-believers and Christians who did not tow the Roman Catholic perspective. This resulted in the mass killings of Christians known as the Cathars. A reading of the history of the Christian crusades, inquisitions and excommunications shows clearly the bitter experiences of people in Europe, Middle East, and the Americas in the hands of Christians, stretching for centuries. In fact, the Europeans got tired of the violent and murderous Christian crusades and inquisitions, hence, launched the European Renaissance from the 14^th to the 17^th centuries. The Renaissance resulted in the separation of church and state. It also led to the emergence of secular humanism.

Thankfully, while the Roman Catholic pope has acknowledged the atrocities committed in the past and rendered an apology, the Arab/Islamic world is yet to acknowledge the role it played in mass enslavement of Black Africans, Asians and Europeans.

References

AD 1493: The Pope asserts rights to colonize, convert, and enslave. (n.d.). Timeline. Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.nim.nih.org/nativevoices/timeline/171.html.

Campbell, H. (n.d.). Treaty of Tordesillas. Britannica Encyclopedia. Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Tordesillas.

Elliott, M. & Hughes, J. (2019, August 19). We’ve got to tell the unvarnished story. The New York Times. Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.cominteractive/2019/08/19/magazine/history-slavery-smithsonian.html.

What is the origin of the Japanese and Chinese Peoples? A Biblical perspective. Free Bible. Biblical Origins of Chinese and Japanese Peoples: A Historical Perspective | Free Bible.

The Source of Easter

Priye S. Torulagha

Quite often, members of the global religious community, especially Christians and Muslims, tend to stereotype traditional/indigenous religions as paganistic and idol worshipping without realizing that every religion in the world is a product of its culture.

When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire in 380 CE through the Edict of Thessalonica, the Christians worked frantically to persuade Europeans to convert to Christianity. At that time, many Europeans viewed the religion as a foreign religion that was culturally not palatable to their religious taste. Hence, the Europeans rebuffed the effort and continued their pre-Christian religious practices.

Therefore, to spread Christianity, the Catholic Church adopted various strategies, including incorporating pre-Christian pagan traditions. It seems that Pope Gregory I was the first church leader to encourage the adoption of pagan ways. But Pope Gregory III was the leader who decisively adopted pre-Christian practices. As a result, apart from Christmas Day on December 25, Easter was also adopted.

Easter originated from a pre-Christian Sumerian/Jewish religious tradition of Passover that was modified. The word “Easter” is derived from the Babylonian pagan goddess Astarte or Ishtar (goddess of heaven or of fertility). The Greeks had a goddess known as Demeter with a spring festival to honor her. The ancient Anglo-Saxons referred to her as Eastre or Eostre, the goddess of dawn and new beginning/fertility which reflected change in season from winter to spring (Aust, 2006, April 2). A festival was held in her honor during the vernal equinox (the point where the sun passes above the earth’s equator from the south to the north) as a way to celebrate the coming of spring, around April. It should be noted that the Anglo-Saxons referred to the month of April as Easter month (Eosturmonath).

The Christians adopted the paganistic spring festival to celebrate the spiritual rebirth of Jesus Christ after the Good Friday (Robinson, 2012, March 26). It was a tactical move to increase conversion, and it was effective in attracting converts. Today, Christianity is the major religion in Europe, but some Europeans continue to celebrate the pre-Christian religious festivals by honoring Eostre which is also referred to as Ostara.

There are some Christian scholars who do not agree with the view that there was a goddess named Eostre, instead, maintain that Eostre refer to the sun rise rather than a goddess (Bennett, 2025, April 19). Despite the opposition, the similarity between the Christian celebration of Easter and the pre-Christian celebration of either Astarte or Ishtar in the Mediterranean region and Eostre of the Anglo-Saxons is profound. Likewise, the pre-Christians used egg as a symbol to represent fertility, resurrection, and renewal or new beginning during the celebration of Eostre and the early Christian used it as symbol to represent Jesus’s resurrection during Easter. This shows that the Christians adopted the pre-Christian tradition from pre-Christian religious traditions.

References

Aust, J. (2006, April 2). What are the real origins of Easter? Beyond Today. Retrieved May 3, 2017. from https://www.ucg.org/ the-good-news/what-are-the-real-origins-of-easter.

Bennett, J. (2025, April 19). Eostre: Is the pagan origin of Easter a fabrication? Viking Herald. https://thevikingherald.com/article/eostre-is-the-pagan-origin-of-easter-a-complete-fabrication/1166.

Robinson, B. A. (2012, March 26). Easter: Its pagan origins. Religious Tolerance. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.religioustol- erance.org/easter1.htm.

The Archeologist. (2023, August 24. Uncovering the Origins of Easter: From Pagan Tradiions to Christian Beliefs. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/uncovering-the-origins-of-easter-from-pagan-traditions-to-christian-beliefs.

Martin Luther’s Rebellion Leading to the 30-Years War Between the Catholics and Protestants

Martin Luther’s Rebellion Leading to the 30-Years War Between the Catholics and Protestants

By Priye S. Torulagha

Martin Luther (1483 -1546) contributed immensely to shaking up the Christian world, to the extent that the hegemonic power of the Roman Catholic Church was broken in Europe. Who was Martin Luther? He was a German monk, theologian, priest, and professor of theology in Wittenberg University in Germany.

Disgusted by the transgressions of the pope and the Catholic Church, at the age of 34, he compiled 95 theses which pinpointed the sins of the church, particularly the selling of indulgences and posted the theses on the door of the Schlosskirche (Castle Church) of the University of Wittenberg, in Germany on October 31, 1517. He expected an intellectualized theological debate on the matter. At the time, the Catholic Church was corrupt and raised funds by informing worshippers that sins would be forgiven by the pope if they buy indulgences. The practice of selling indulgences started in the Middle Ages. Many individuals bought indulgences in the hope that their sins would be forgiven. As a theologian, Martin Luther fervently argued that no human being or institution can forgive sins since only God can do so. He added that salvation can only be achieved through faith alone and not through church rituals or authority of the pope. He frowned against the monetization of faith (“Martin Luther as priest, heretic and outlaw,” n.d.).

Additionally, he queried why the pope who was very rich did not use his enormous wealth to build St. Peter Bassilica but instead used funds provided by the poor to do so (Cornelius, 2017, October 28). The Lutheran argument about the church and money continues to reverberate in contemporary times as many pastors and church leaders are alleged to compel their congregations to give tithe when some people cannot even eat two meals a day.

After posting the 95 theses, he wrote to his superior, Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, informing him of his action. Due to the sensitivity of the issue concerning the selling of indulgence, the archbishop did not respond immediately. Why? Because the revenue collected from the selling of indulgences were used to pay the debts of the archbishop in Germany and the funding of the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome by Pope Leo X. The pope felt that Martin Luther challenged his authority since he had the power to grant indulgences. The pope summoned a gathering of high-ranking clergy and theologians to debate Martin Luther on the issue. The disputation took place in Leipzig on July 15, 1519, in which theologian Johannes Eck challenged Martin Luther, but Luther refused to renounce his position on the matter. Since Martin Luther refused to retract his views, Johannes Eck recommended to Pope Leo X to issue an edict or a papal bull declaring Luther’s position as heresy with a threat of excommunicating him from the Catholic Church. The pope issued “Exsurge Domine” compelling Luther to retract his doctrinal challenge of the church in 1520. Again, he refused to retract his views about the church and the pope. He even went as far as to call the pope an “Antichrist.” Pope Leo X issued papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem on January 3, 1521, resulting in the excommunication of Martin Luther from the Catholic Church. Resultantly, he was declared a heretic by Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in Germany because he refused to attend an invitation, instead, wrote a letter in response (“Martin Luther Excommunicated,” 2025, December 16).

In those days, it was very dangerous to be declared as a heretic by the Christian Church. In some cases, it meant severe torture and possibly death. Having been declared as a heretic through the Edict of Worms in 1521 by Emperor Charles V, Martin Luther was taken away by his supporters, particularly Frederick III of Saxony and hidden in Wartburg Castle in Wittenberg for about a year to avoid being captured and possibly killed by church authorities. While hiding, he adopted the name Junker Jorg or Knight George and translated the New Testament of the Bible from Greek to German (Petro, 2017, October 23). The establishment of the Gutenberg Press facilitated the mass printing of the Bible and other books, thereby, enhancing literacy and the acquisition of knowledge. The printing of his writings spread Luther’s ideas rapidly among those who agreed with his views about the pope and the church.

Protestant Reformation

Following intellectual debates about Luther’s views concerning the pope and the church, he was emboldened to call for the reforming of the church. German nobles and many Christians agreed with him because they were tired of the dictatorial authority of the pope and the church. Luther then suggested to German nobles to reform the oppressive and corrupt Catholic Church and the state. He suggested that it is necessary for the state to have authority over the church and not for the church to have authority over the state.

Thus, he set the ball rolling for the initiation of the Protestant Reformation. The protestants were those Christians who did not agree with some theological positions of the Catholic Church and wanted to establish a separate branch of Christianity that reflected their theological views on Christianity.

At the time in Western Europe, the Roman Catholic Church was the only Christian Church that also acted as the state. Thus, the pope was the spiritual head of the church, and Emperor Charles V was the political head of state (The Holy Roman Empire). Many German nobles supported Luther. Likewise, Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin in Switzerland and others in other parts of Europe joined the protestant movement against the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII of England joined the movement in 1534, resulting in the establishment of the Church of England (Anglican Church). The Anabaptists argued for the complete separation of church and state. Due to the theological disagreement, Catholic Europe was divided between the Catholics and Protestants.

The Protestant Reformation enabled local political rulers to seek autonomy from the Catholic Church. In so doing, they seized lands and properties belonging to the Catholic Church. This further increased ideological hostilities between the Catholics and Protestants (Lutherans) resulting in the German Peasant Revolt in 1524 and continuing with the Knights Revolt and the Schmalkaldic War. To reduce conflict, the Peace of Augsburg Treaty was signed in 1555. It led to the establishment of the policy of cuius regio, eius religio (whose realm, their religion) which encouraged each ruler to freely choose or adopt either the Catholic or the Lutheran faith (Mark 2022, August 11).

The 30-Years War

By the seventeenth century, the division between the Catholics and Protestants deepened to the extent that the states which had adopted Lutheranism (Protestantism) resisted the Holy Roman Empire led by the Habsburgs. The 30-years war erupted when Protestant nobles forcefully evicted Catholic officials in Bohemia in 1618 in Prague in protest over the prohibition of religious freedom. This incident resulted in a continental war involving the Holy Roman Empire, (made up of Austria, Bavaria, Bohemia, Habsburg, Saxony, etc.) and Bradenburg-Prussia, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden. The war started on May 23, 1618, in Bohemia and spread to other parts of the continent. The war could be broken into four phases, including (1) Bohemian Revolt 1618 -1620, (2) Denmark’s Engagement 1625 -1629, (3) Sweden’s Engagement 1630 – 1634, and (4) France Engagement 1635 -1645 (Mark, 2022, August 11).

It was a very bloody war that was fought mostly in Central Europe. It ended on October 24, 1648. About 20% of the German population died in the war (Daley, 2017, June 6). Some estimates put the total number of deaths at about 8 million people (Mark, 2022, August 11).

The Thirty-Years War ended with the signing of the Peace of Westphalia Treaty on October 24, 1648. The treaty followed the format established by the treaty of the Peace of Augsburg in 1555 which established the concept of national sovereignty over the right of the state to choose what branch of Christianity to uphold without being compelled by another power to abide by a particular Christian faith.

Conclusion

Martin Luther’s rebellion against the pope and the Catholic Church resulted in the establishment of protestant churches. Therefore, any Christian today who is not a Catholic is basically a member of a Protestant Church. Thus, the Anglican, Baptist, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Nondenominational, Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist, and Presbyterian churches are Protestant because they are products of the Protestant Reformation that Martin Luther instigated when he rebelled against the Roman Catholic Church in Germany in the sixteenth century. Many Christians are not aware of the tumultuous history of Christianity. Most of them rarely pay attention to the history and focus excessively on the reading and interpretation of biblical sayings.

References

Cornelius, E. (2017, October 28). How Martin LLuther’s 95 theses altered history. LPN Media Group Lancaster. https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/how-martin-luther-s-95-theses-altered-history/article_84ddf562-bb41-11e7-b49d-cfa18324c87f.htm.

Daley, J. (2017, June 6). Researchers catalogue the grisly deaths of soldiers in the Thirty-Years War. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/researchers-catalogue-grisly-deaths-soldiers-thirty-years-war-180963531/).

Mark, J. J. (2022, August 11). Thirty Years War. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/Thirty_Years’_War/).

Martin Luther Excommunicated.” (2025, December 16). History. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/january-3/martin-luther-excommunicated).

Martin Luther as priest, heretic and outlaw.” (n.d.). Library of Congress. https://guides.loc.gov/martin-luther-priest-heretic-outlaw/luther-the-priest

Petro, B. (2017, October 23). History of Martin Luther: Part 5 -kidnapped. https://billpetro.com/martin-luther-part-5-kidnapped/.

The Council of Nicaea and the Debate Over the Status of Jesus Christ

By Priye S. Torulagha

Today, most Christians have an unquestionable faith that Jesus Christ is not only the son of God but is a manifestation of God. Consequently, no one can seek the salvation of God without going through him. This belief is reinforced daily by both Christian leaders and adherents.

However, it should be noted that in the past, especially during the formative years of Christianity, it was not so. There were some Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was the son of God and coeternal with God and there were those Christians who did not believe that he was coeternal with God. Likewise, there were Christians who believed in the TRINITY (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost) and there were those who opposed trinity because they felt that it is contradictory to have one God with three personalities. They felt that Trinity tended to be polytheistic (many gods), which is a contradiction of monotheism (One God) that Christianity stands for. Thus, the early Christian Church was divided by ideological factions that made it difficult to develop a coherent theological doctrine about Christianity. There were many factions or cliques that preached different ideas about Christianity, resulting in doctrinal conflicts.

Emperor Constantine who served as both the political and religious (Pontifex Maximus) head of the Roman Empire developed interest in Christianity even though he was a pagan. It should be noted that it was he who first legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, thereby, enabling Christians to worship their religion without being persecuted. He did not like the theological division among the Christians and wanted them to resolve their differences to ensure peace in the empire. He invited 200 to 300 Christian bishops to attend a conference at Nicaea in 325 CE to resolve the dispute (Baker, n.d.).

One of the major issues the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE tackled was determining the relationship between the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Father (God). Emperor Constantine felt that it was necessary to resolve the issue since Arius (an Alexandrian church priest in Egypt) raised the matter in 318 CE, thereby causing divisiveness in the Christian movement about the status of Jesus Christ. This issue divided the council into two factions. One faction was led by Saint Athanasius, who later became the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt, and the other faction was led by Arius. Saint Athanasius and his supporters argued that the Son (Jesus Christ) was as divine and coeternal as the Father (God), so there was no difference between Jesus and God. On the other hand, Arius and his supporters maintained that the Father (God) was supreme and unique and, hence, greater than the Son (Jesus Christ) because the Son (Jesus) had a beginning and did not possess the eternity and divinity of the Father (God). Accordingly, the Son (Jesus) was made God by the permission of the Father (God). This view of Jesus Christ and God is known as Arianism.

The debate about the status of Jesus Christ went on from May 20 to June 19, 325 CE. The Athanasian view prevailed as most of the bishops, by a large margin, voted for the view that Jesus Christ was as divine and coeternal as God. On the other hand, the Arian view was rejected and viewed as heretical (Hagen, 2006, June 5). Arian and his followers were threatened and they fled. He was excommunicated and died in a mysterious circumstance. The Athanasian version of the place of Jesus Chris in relations to God is known as Nicean theology (Nicene Creed) and is regarded as the Orthodox version of the Christian belief system.

Although Arius and his followers were declared heretics and excommunicated, nevertheless, the issue between Arianism and Nicean theology continued for about three hundred years. Arianism gained traction among the German tribes; hence the Gothic Church adopted the Arian view of Jesus Christ. Even Emperor Costantius II supported the Arain view. The support led to the replacement of the Nicene Creed in 360 CE as the official creed of the Roman Empire (Dunn, 2021). However, Emperor Theodosius supported the Athanasian or orthodox view as proposed by St. Athanasius, so, in 381 CE, he convened the First Council of Constantinople. The council accepted the orthodox view; hence the Nicene Creed was adopted as the official doctrine of Christianity and Arianism was declared as heresy and banned. Emperor Theodosius seized Arian churches and prohibited Arians from living and worshiping in the cities and towns of the empire (Van Niekerk. 2025, June 17). Some Arian leaders were killed and others fled to avoid being tortured and killed.

Although, the orthodox view of the status of Jesus Christ is pretty much accepted today by most Christians, nevertheless, there are still some Christians and groups which continue to maintain the Arian view that the son cannot be coequal with the father since the son had a beginning while the father does not. The Jehovah Witness organization, for example, is based on the Arian view of Jesus Christ.

It is necessary to read beyond the Bible, especially the King James version to fully grasp the intricacies of the issues that surround Christianity.

References

Baker, A. (n.d.). Early Church History CH 101. https://www.churchhistory101.com/council-nicea-325.php).

Dunn, M. (2021). Chapter – 2 Entry-Level Christianity. Cambridge University. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/arianism/entrylevel-christianity/4C4C797809F8ABB9EE7E6AD90B0844FD.

Hagen, J. B. (2006, June 5). The real story of the Council of Nicaea. American Magazine. https://www.americamagazine.org/from-our-archives/2006/06/05/real-story-council-nicea/.

van Niekerk, A. (2025, June 17). Why did Theodosius succeed in ending the Arian controversy. Revelation by Jesus Christ.com. https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/theodosius-successful/).

Do not Grant Amnesty to Ideologically Motivated Herdsmen, Bandits and Jihadists: They are Different from Niger Delta/South-South Agitators

Do not Grant Amnesty to Ideologically Motivated Herdsmen, Bandits and Jihadists: They are Different from Niger Delta/South-South Agitators

By Priye S. Torulagha

For some time now, some prominent political and Islamic leaders in the Islamic North have been campaigning and putting pressure on the Nigerian government to grant amnesty to violent Fulani herders, bandits, kidnappers and jihadists who have killed over 100,000 Nigerians and displaced about 3.5 million people from their communities in the past ten years. To justify the need to grant amnesty, they maintain that the violent elements should be treated the way Niger Delta/South-South agitators were treated since they are freedom fighters and not terrorists. In other words, they are saying that since Niger Deta/South-South agitators were granted amnesty, the herders, bandits, kidnappers and jihadists should also be given amnesty, regardless of the enormity of their violent crimes against Nigerians for about ten years now.

By so doing, they equate the goals, objectives and actions of the ideologically driven herders and jihadists with those of the Niger Delta/South-South agitators. In other words, they elevate the moral status of virulent killers with those who fight for justice and equity. Of course, they are aware that there is no equivalence between the two, but they do it as a tactic to accomplish a long, drawn-out goal of Islamizing Nigeria.

One of the earliest exponents to draw equivalence between the jihadists and agitators was the late President Muhammadu Buhari who opposed the efforts to destroy Boko Haram during President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration. When he realized that Boko Haram was about to be defeated, he complained loudly by insisting that “the Federal Government stop clamp down of Boko Haram insurgents, saying Niger Delta militants were never killed or properties belonging to them destroyed.” Then, he added, “what is responsible for the security situation in the country is caused by the activities of Niger Delta militants. Every Nigerian that is familiar with what is happening knows this. The Niger Delta militants started it all” (Stop killing Boko Haram members – Buhari tells FG”, 2013, June 2). The late President Buhari ignored the fact that religiously motivated violent riots are a common facet of social and political interaction in the Islamic North, going as far back as 1948. He also ignored that Boko Haram is a phrase which rejects Western education. The fact that Boko Haram opposes Western education means that the organization is driven by an uncompromising religious ideology and not by the issues which led to the Niger Delta/South-South agitation. This is why school children are frequently kidnapped, starting with the abduction of the Chibok students on April 14, 2014, and continuing with the recent abduction of students at St. Mary’s Private Catholic Secondary School in Papiri in Niger State.

Other important northern personalities who have suggested granting amnesty include former governor Ahmed Yerima of Zamfara State, Sen. Diket Plang of Plateau State, and Sheikh Ahmed Abubakar Gumi. Governor Ahmed Yerima justified the need for amnesty to the heartless killers by saying, “The best way to go about handling the issue of bandits is to introduce dialogue first. Former President Umaru Yar’Adua had a similar interaction with the militants in the Niger Delta, and it was successful” (“Crush bandits, don’t’ grant them amnesty,” 2023, July 13). It should also be noted that Northern elders, including Mohammed Uwais, a former CJN, Ambassador Babagana Kingigbe, and former Nigerian Ambassador to the UN, Ibrahim Gambari, asked former President Muhammadu Buhari to grant amnesty to Boko Haram (Point Blank News,2015, May 24). Additionally, the late President Muhammadu Buhari also supported granting amnesty to the Boko Haram (Grace, 2018, April 4). Among those who have called for amnesty, Sheikh Ahmed Abubakar Gumi is the most strident in his demand for amnesty. He justifies the need for granting them one by saying:

I see no reason why we cannot accept their (bandits) repentance and give them amnesty. You ask why do we give them amnesty but they told us specifically that they are ready to drop their arms and they don’t want to be pursued with legal actions after they repented. These people in the bush who have taken arms, they are criminals. I wonder who is not a criminal. Since Nigeria forgave coup plotters, forgave those that killed. Even those that instigated civil war; civil war that millions of people died, I see no reason why we cannot accept their repentance (“Gumi insists on amnesty for bandits, says Nigeria is already in flames,” 2021, March 5).

However, the late Dr. Junaid Muhammed, a former lawmaker, opposed granting amnesty by calling Boko Haram members criminals (“Northern elders want amnesty for Boko Haram, don’t, they are criminals says Dr. Mohammed,” 2015, May 24). Other prominent Nigerians who have opposed granting amnesty to violent herdsmen, Boko Haram, and other jihadists included Sen. Femi Okorounmu, former NBA Vice President Monday Ubani, Niger Delta activist, Ann Kio-Briggs, and former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Austin Opara. They justified their opposition by saying that Boko Haram has not shown any remorse or a desire to seek amnesty, hence, granting the members amnesty will only encourage a jihad (Grace, 2018, April 4).

The Purpose of this Article

The purpose of this article is to show that there is a difference between Fulani herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers and jihadist groups and Niger Delta agitators. In order to accomplish the task, three arguments are made: (1), there is no equivalence between the actions of the Niger Delta/South-South agitators and herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists who have inflicted so much carnage on the Nigerian state; (2) it would amount to a monumental strategic failure for the Federal Government of Nigeria to grant amnesty to groups that are bent on destroying Nigeria by terrorizing the country to bring it to its knees, and (3) the ultimate goal of the jihadists is to transform Nigeria from a multireligious secular democratic state to an Islamic state. The arguments are reinforced through systematic identification of the reasons why they should not be granted amnesty. It should be clearly stated that any form of violence is disassociated with here since it is inimical to the peaceful settlements of disputes. Therefore, it is essential to resolve political disputes peacefully through amicable negotiations and not through violence.

The Reasons Why Niger Delta/South-South Agitators Acted

A brief identification of the issues that prompted some youths of the Niger Delta/South-South to act to address decades-long economic and political problems might shade light in understanding the difference between the agitators in the oil region and Fulani herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers and jihadists who want to Islamize Nigeria.

First, Nigeria took away the natural right of ownership from the indigenes of the oil region, thereby depriving them of the ability to exercise authority over their resources. Hence, oil and gas exploration is totally operated by the Federal Government. The inhabitants of the oil region have no say whatsoever about the operations of the industry. The problem is that Nigeria treats the oil region very badly by not allowing private exploration and refining of oil and gas. The nationalization of liquid minerals results in pauperization of the inhabitants of the region and the destruction of the environment due to massive pollution and gas flaring. Due to the existential threat emanating from the way the Federal Government operates the oil industry, the agitators were pushed to the wall to let Nigeria know about the desperate plight of the region and to encourage it to change its reckless behavior. On the other hand, the Fulani cattle business is totally operated by individuals since it is a private enterprise, and the owners are in the business to make profit. The owners are basically private cattle business operators, but they want the government to finance their operations by providing them with free land, cattle feed, and associated services while they pocket the profit. Additionally, they want the government to provide and guarantee them cattle routes in the twenty-first century in a country with more than 230 million people. Boko Haram and other jihadist groups emerged as fronts for Islamizing Nigeria, hence, are destroying and killing people to forcefully impose Sharia on the country in the twenty-first century.

Second, the Niger Delta/South-South agitators took action to address inherent economic exploitation, injustice, and marginalization, following over five decades of national ownership, regulation and management of oil and gas exploration. Thus, the oil region suffered severely due to national neglect, discrimination, massive unemployment, and underdevelopment, despite being the nation’s source of national wealth. In other words, despite contributing massively to the national economy, the Federal Government ignored the region in its economic and infrastructural development agenda, thereby contributing to extreme poverty and environmental degradation. The neglect amounted to an existential threat, thereby necessitating action to address the dire situation in the oil region. Additionally, it should be noted that the oil wealth is massively looted by high-placed public officials to the disadvantage of the oil region and Nigerians in general.

Third, it should be noted that the oil wealth is used to fund the entire country, including the national government, 36 states, 774 local governments, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) for over 50 years. On the other hand, the cattle business is a private enterprise operated by individuals and cooperatives whose sole purpose is to make profit from the selling of cows, as indicated above. The profit generated is not deposited in the Federation Account (FA) and distributed to the national government, 36 states, 774 local governments, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) the way the oil wealth from the oil region is shared. This means that the profit generated from the cattle business goes directly into the pockets of those who own the cattle. Unlike the cattle business, the oil business in the Niger Delta/South-South is totally operated by the Federal Government and the wealth generated goes directly into the Federation Account and is distributed throughout the country. Thus, the owners of cattle make decisions about their products while the owners of oil and gas are not allowed to make decisions about their resources.

Fourth, while the Niger Delta/South-South bent backward to allow Nigeria to nationalize oil and gas ownership, and management, the Federal Government refuses to nationalize the ownership of solid minerals, including amethyst, aquamarine, barytes, bauxite, bentonite, bitumen, clay, coal, columbite, copper ore, gemstones, gypsum, gold, iron ore, lithium, manganese, mica, phosphate, pyrite, sapphire, tantalite, tin, tourmaline, wolframite, zircon, and so forth. In fact, there are about fifty or more solid minerals in Nigeria, but the national government is not eager to nationalize their ownership, thereby enabling individuals to mine them. Thus, individuals and cooperatives can create private wealth from mining solid minerals while individuals and cooperatives cannot explore and refine oil to earn private profit. Therefore, the indigenes of the oil region are held hostage by the national government and cannot make decisions about their resources. This leads to economic exploitation and injustice and the attendant agitation for a better economic relationship between the nation and the oil region. Cattle owners in Nigeria are not held hostage by the national government.

Fifth, the citizens of the oil region were and continued to be discriminated in employment while most Nigerian employees in the oil industry come from other regions of the country. Added to the employment discrimination is the fact that most oil blocks are given to Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions. Thus, the direness of the situation led some youths of the region to agitate for better treatment of the region. They focused their actions specifically on addressing their plight in the oil region. They did not view other Nigerians as being inferior to them and neither did they call other Nigerians infidels. Their agitation was not driven by an ideology of conquest to take over Nigeria. They did not roam the country and hide in the forest to kill Nigerians, destroy their communities and displace them. They did not drive Nigerians away to take over their communities and rename them while forcing the indigenes to live in internally displaced persons (IDP) camps. Thus, as soon as President Umaru Yar’Adua decided to negotiate the issues with them, they stopped their operations. Since then, the oil region has experienced peace.

Sixth, to show that the agitators strongly believe in the success of the Nigerian project, it is not a coincidence that oil pipelines and facilities are being protected today by some of the same Niger Delta/South-South agitators to prevent oil bunkering and interruption in oil and gas operations, so that Nigeria’s economy could be stabilized for the betterment of the entire country. They did not threaten to take over Nigeria, instead, they called for a just political and economic treatment of all Nigerians to strengthen the unity of the country.

The Intentions of the Fulani Herdsmen, Bandits, Kidnappers and Jihadists

The intentions, goals, and actions of Fulani herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists are totally different from the intentions, goals, and actions of the Niger Delta/South-South agitators. To understand the difference, it is necessary to know that the genesis of the desire for Islamization which has given birth to the violent mayhem that is engulfing the country started with the declarative statements made by Sir Ahmadu Bello and other important Fulani leaders in Islamic North to arouse Fulanis and Muslims to act in fulfilment of Othman Dan Fodio’s aspiration for an Islamic state.

First, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the grandson of Othman Dan Fodio who launched a violent revolution to overthrow Hausa and other traditional African states, declared and commanded his people to act. He declared, “We the people of the north will continue our stated intention to conquer the south and to dip the Koran in the Atlantic Ocean after the British leave our shores” (Fani-Kayode, 2019, November 11). To emphasize the importance of the proposed war to Fulanize and Islamize Nigeria, he added: “The new nation called Nigeria should be an estate of our great grandfather Othman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We must use the minorities in the North as willing tools and the South as a conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us and… never allow them to have control over their future” (Awhefeada, 2018, January 15).

In support of Sir Ahmadu Bello’s declaration of a jihad to Islamize Nigeria under the leadership of the Fulani, Mallam Bala Garuba added to the fiery declaration: “The conquest to the sea is now in sight. When our god-sent Ahmadu Bello said some years ago that our conquest will reach the seashores of Nigeria, some idiots in the south were doubting its possibilities. Today have we not reached the sea? Lagos is reached. It remains Port Harcourt. It must be conquered and taken after December 30, 1964” (Nairaland Forum,2021, November 26).

Strongly believing that the British handed over Nigeria to the Islamic North to be led by the Fulanis, former Sultan Ibrahim Dasuku allegedly stated, “This country was given to we northerners by the British to rule. When they left the understanding between us was that the North would always lead and rule Nigeria” (Fani-Kayode, 2019, November 11).

In emphasizing the importance of the jihad being led by the Fulanis, even other Muslims are required to be crushed violently. Hence, another prominent Islamic leader in the North, Alhaji Aliyu Gwarzo reinforced the importance of using a jihad to claim Nigeria by allegedly saying: “It was either the Koran or the sword and most of them chose the Koran. In return for the good works of our forefathers, Allah, through the British, gave us Nigeria to rule and to do as we please. Since 1960 we have been doing that and we intend to continue” (Point Blank News, October 2, 2014). Angered by the fact that President Goodluck Jonathan, a Southern Christian wanted to continue to contest for the presidency, he declared:

No Goodluck or anyone else will stop us from taking back our power next year. We will kill, maim, destroy and turn this country into Africa’s biggest war zone and refugee camp if they try it… When I say that the Presidency must come to the north next year, I am referring to the Hausa-Fulani core north and not any northern Christian or Muslim minority tribe…The Christians in the north such as the Berom, the Tiv, the Kataf, the Jaba, the Zuru, the Sayyawa, the Jukun, the Idoma, and all others are nothing and the Muslim minorities in the north, including the Kanuri, the Nupe, the Igbira, the Barbur, the Shuwa Arabs, the Marghur, and all the others know that when we are talking about leadership in the north and Nigeria, Allah has given it to us, the Hausa-Fulani” (Point Blank News, 2014, October 2).

According to Alhaji Gwarzo’s view, as indicated in the above quotation, the plan to establish a Fulanized Islamic state in Nigeria includes killing of other Muslims as well. Based on the significance of Islamizing Nigeria, retired Maj Gen. Muhammadu Buhari who became a Nigerian military head of state and a civilian president of the country encouraged Muslims in Nigeria not to vote for non-Muslims during elections. He said, “that Muslims should only vote for Muslims and those who will defend their faith” (Sahara reporters, 2021). To reinforce his belief in the Islamization of Nigeria, he added: “I will continue to show openly and inside me the total commitment to the Sharia movement that is sweeping all over Nigeria. God willing, we will not stop the agitation for the total implementation of the Sharia in the country” (Oyewole, 2014, December 24). Former Governor Nasir El-Rufai agreed with President Buhari by insisting on Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket (Babangida, n.d.).

These very powerful Islamic Northern leaders are quoted here to show that the desire to change Nigeria and turn it into an Islamic state is real. They provide the ideological basis for the violence being perpetrated in the country.

Two, based on the command given by Sir Ahmadu Bello to complete the dream of Othman Dan Fodio, the plan involves gradual introduction of armed conflict to destabilize and take over the country. Therefore, Boko Haram, Islamic State of West Africa Province (ISWAP), Fulani herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, Ansaru, Lakurawa, and the Mahmuda Group are parts of the same force organized to achieve the Islamization agenda. Thus, assigning different names such as herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists to the militant Islamists is merely diversionary tactics to confuse Nigerians to believe that herdsmen have a different goal from the bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists. Basically, in military parlance, these fighters are organized like different branches of a military organization. In a formalized military organization, there are infantry, artillery, commando, special forces, intelligence, air corps, drone and cyber force, missile force, paratroopers, rangers, and other divisions or branches. It is the same thing with these jihadist groups whose main goal is to inflict death and destruction with the aim of transforming the country into an Islamic state.

Third, apparently, the Boko Haram, ISWAP, herdsmen, Ansaru, Lakurawa, and Mahmuda Group are ideologically committed to taking over Nigeria. The Niger Delta/South-South agitators were not committed ideologically to destroying Nigeria; hence, it was easy to negotiate and reduce conflict in the oil region by addressing the bones of contention. On the other hand, the jihadist groups can never be satisfied with any negotiated settlement that does not include the Sharia and Islamization of Nigeria. Moreover, they are sponsored by some of the most powerful Nigerian political, military, and religious elites in Islamic Northern Nigeria. Even high-level public officials are involved in the project to change Nigeria.

Fourth, no amount of negotiation will end their struggle to Islamize Nigeria. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Benue, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto, Taraba, Borno, and Zamfara states have repeatedly negotiated with these armed groups without success. Some of these states have even paid large sums of money to the herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists several times to encourage them to stop the carnage. Despite the effort, the armed elements always return to continue their violent invasion, kidnapping, killing of people and destruction of communities (Abdulhamin, 2025, March 11). They are not likely to comply with the terms of any amnesty because they are ideologically committed to Islamizing Nigeria as Sir Ahmadu Bello had directed. They are ideologically committed to achieving their goal to the extent that they view non-Muslims in the country as infidels, hence inferior to them. This means that Ancestralists and Christians must convert to Islam or face the sword.

Fifth, to further show that no amount of negotiation will end the conflict unless Nigeria accepts their demand for Sharia and Islamization, the Nigerian Army compromised its defensive stand by accepting to rehabilitate, de-radicalize, and reintegrate surrendered and captured Boko Haram fighters, based on the suggestions of the leaders of the Islamic North. The rehabilitated and reintegrated former Boko Haram members are treated much better than their victims who now live in squalid refugee camps and treated as if they have no rights. Thus, you have the Nigerian Army bending backwards to accommodate jihadists who turned around to kill soldiers, police officers, civilians, and civil defense members.

Sixth, giving them amnesty will not end their determination to achieve the dream of Islamizing Nigeria. The reason is that as far as many Islamic leaders in the North believe in the declarations made by Othman Dan Fodio and Sir Ahmadu Bello, the foot soldiers of the jihad will never give up the struggle. It is not a coincidence that the leadership of the Islamic North has not made a strong statement to condemn the violence being perpetrated by herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists. This means that many leaders are in support of violence. It also means that they are aware of the long-term goal of eventually conquering and Islamizing the country. Hence, the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) was very quick to condemn the killings of 16 suspected herdsmen in Uromi in Edo State and demanded investigation and compensation from the state government (Popoola, 2025, March 30). Governor Monday Okpebholo of Edo State was quick to respond to the demands of the Islamic northern elders and commiserated with the governor and peoples of Kano state over the killings.

On the other hand, neither the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) nor any other group of Islamic Northern leaders has apologized to the states and families of over 100,000 Nigerians that have been killed by Boko Haram, ISWAP, herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, Ansaru and Mahmuda Group. It is amazing that not a single northern leader has strongly pleaded with the violent elements to stop their rampage. Instead, the leaders have consistently called for granting the killers amnesty as if the lives of those Nigerians killed are not important. Perhaps, they view the victims as infidels that do not deserve any pity, as far as they are not Muslims. It was not surprising that prominent northern elites have pleaded with President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Minister of Defense, Gen. Christopher Musa (retd), not to use the Nigerian military fully to destroy the bandits. Even Prof Usman Yusuf insisted that the bandits whom he referred to as freedom fighters, should not be killed while they continue their rampage by kidnapping and killing Nigerians (Idiri, 2025, December 19). The opposition to the full deployment of the military to tackle the problem of insecurity in the country is clear evidence of the fact that the jihad is strongly supported by many northern Islamic elites.

Thus, jihadists are not likely to uphold the conditions of amnesty as Niger Delta/South-South agitators because they are ideologically committed to capturing Nigeria. The doubt about their willingness to uphold the conditions of amnesty is influenced by the fact that several negotiations between them and several states ended in failure. They often negotiate with state and local community leaders to stop their violent operations. Following negotiations, they stop temporarily after having been paid by the governments and later resume the cycle again. The Nigeria Risk Index noted:

In recent months, several northern Nigerian states – Katsina, Zamfara, Kaduna, and Sokoto – have embarked on a controversial experiment: negotiating peace deals with armed bandit groups that have terrorized rural communities for years. These agreements, aimed at halting kidnappings, violent raids, and mass displacement, mark a significant shift from the state’s traditional reliance on military force to a more negotiated approach.

Moreover, the tactical gains from negotiations may prove short-lived if not backed by a comprehensive strategy. History shows that many armed groups use ceasefires as opportunities to regroup, rearm, and reposition. The absence of rigorous monitoring mechanisms leaves state authorities vulnerable to manipulation, and today’s truce can easily become tomorrow’s escalation (Nigeria Risk Index, n.d.).

Seventh, it is necessary to remind Nigerians that violent riots necessitated by religious animosity have taken place most frequently in Islamic Northern Nigeria than in any other part of the country. The list of religiously motivated riots included the Tafawa Balewa riots of 1948 (which reoccurred in 1959, 1977, 1991, 1995, 2001, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012), the 1953 riots which lasted for four days following a dispute over the date or time for declaring Nigerian independence, the pogrom against the Igbos following the second counter-military coup of July 29, 1966, the 1970s -80s Maitatsine riots that gripped the North, the 2004 religious war in Yelwa leading to the deaths of hundreds of Muslims, Boko Haram riots starting from 2008 that blossomed into a full-blown jihad, and so forth. In short, the Islamic North is the most volatile part of Nigeria because of religious zealots who preach and encourage jihad against infidels.

Eighth, Niger Delta/South-South agitators had no plan whatsoever to capture the entire country through sheer violence and turn it into something else. On the other hand, armed herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists are committed to turning the entire country upside down and Islamizing it. Therefore, any amnesty given them will only provide an opportunity for them to escalate their demands since their goal is ideologically driven to convert Ancestralists and Christians into Muslims through the sword.

Ninth, the jihadists in Nigeria are following a model that had been executed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Russia. In Russia, the government took decisive military action to stop the jihad in the North Caucasus region, especially in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia. The jihadists in Nigeria know that they must be tactical and committed to a long-term struggle to achieve their goal. Therefore, the jihadists in Nigeria are motivated by Al Qaida, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, the Al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and the Taliban. They are not worried about their members being killed as they continue the struggle to achieve their goal. Commodore Kunle Olawunmi, the retired former director of military intelligence in the Nigerian Defense Headquarters explained the objective of the jihad by saying:

There are some hardliners in this government that are sponsoring this kind of narratives. They just want to show that they can Islamize this country. They think about Taliban, they think about the Mujahedeen, and they want to replicate it in this country.

And they don’t care what happens. They simply don’t care. As long as at the end of the day, the Sharia and there is, whatever thing they have in their head, they want to achieve. The intention is to Islamize Nigeria. And practice Sharia. And it doesn’t matter if some people die. It doesn’t matter if our economy degenerates (Oyeniran, 2024, October 27).

Tenth, unlike Niger Delta/South-South agitators who only wanted economic and political injustices to be addressed by Nigeria, the armed herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers and jihadists are using violence to ensure population displacement, especially in Central Nigeria and hope to replace them with Fulanis. To ensure population displacement, they sack indigenous communities and force the residents to flee so that their people can occupy the communities. This is why the names of some displaced communities have been changed to reflect Fulani and Islamic coloration. This is going on in Benue, Kaduna, Katsina, Niger, Plateau, Taraba and Zamfara states. Surprisingly, the Islamists among the leaders of the Islamic North have never ordered their people who have occupied other peoples’ communities to vacate them. The silence of the Fulani leadership in the Islamic North means that the policy of displacement is accepted by some of the leaders. Therefore, an amnesty will not solve the problem of indigenous displacement. The Federal Government is terrified of the power of the Islamic North to the extent that it has failed to take decisive steps to reclaim the communities for the rightful owners. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu dances around the issue, instead of fully mobilizing the military forces to stop the mayhem. He was very quick to deploy Nigeria’s military forces to Benin Republic but has not been willing to fully mobilize the military forces to weed out the jihadists in Nigeria.

Eleventh, it seems that amnesty is being sought as a tactical weapon to further enhance Sharia and the Islamization of the country. Otherwise, it is strange that while individuals like Sheikh Ahmed Abubakar Gumi insist that the Federal Government should negotiate and give violent armed herders, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists an amnesty, these fighters continue to spread all over the country to kidnap and kill Nigerians. Why are they spreading and hiding in the forests in many parts of the country to carry out kidnappings and killings of people if they want amnesty? If they were really interested in amnesty, they would not be intentionally spreading their tentacles and increasing the level of violent attacks. In many parts of the country, truckloads of young Fulani men have been caught heading to different parts of the country to reinforce their fighters. If herdsmen and jihadists want amnesty, they would not be transporting young men all over the country to camp in the forest. The fact that they are tactically placing their members in strategic locations throughout the country indicates that they are not ready for amnesty since they are mobilizing and reinforcing for war.

Twelfth, Sheikh Gumi and other supporters of violent jihadists seem to want amnesty as a strategy to shield the identities of terrorism sponsors in the country. The reason is that if amnesty is granted to the foot soldiers who are rampaging through the country to inflict death and destruction, then there will be no need to arrest and prosecute those who are sponsoring or financing them. In other words, giving an amnesty to the terrorists is tantamount to giving an amnesty to those who sponsor the terrorists. Thus, amnesty is an excellent strategic tool to hide the names of terrorism sponsors. If the names of the sponsors are not publicly released, arrested and tried, then the struggle to Islamize Nigeria will continue since the sponsors are the brains behind the entire mayhem. The Federal Government, especially the president and members of the National Assembly, should not make the mistake of granting amnesty, otherwise, the national government will inadvertently support the terrorization of the country by failing to arrest and prosecute terrorism sponsors.

Thirteenth, it is strategically unwise for Nigeria to consider granting amnesty to herdsmen and jihadists because the Islamization agenda is part of a global goal to Islamize not only Nigeria, but West Africa and the rest of the continent. As such, the Nigerian sponsors of terrorism receive financial and tactical assistance from Al Qaeda, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and some foreign countries that are desirous of Islamizing Nigeria. Consequently, granting amnesty to the jihadists in Nigeria will not stop the violence since the long-term goal is to Islamize the country. Due to the long-term goal of the violence being perpetrated, if Nigeria grants amnesty to the current groups, other groups will emerge to continue the struggle. Likewise, if they are given amnesty, some of the current groups may change their names and continue as if they are new groups since they are ideologically committed to their struggle.

Moreover, there is no guarantee that after the current groups have been granted amnesty, the international jihadist movements will not create new ones to continue the struggle. It should be noted that Jihadist movements are also supported by foreign states which are directing the Islamization of the globe.

Fourteenth, if President Bola Ahmed Tinubu grants amnesty to the ideologically driven Islamic jihadists, it will create the impression that he did it to shield the identities of terrorism sponsors in Nigeria. Such action could lead to the implication that, perhaps, some top officials of the Tinubu administration are involved in terrorism sponsorship. The other implication would be that the sponsors are more powerful than the Nigerian state, hence, are above the law and cannot be arrested and prosecuted. Such impression could lead to the view that Nigeria is not a sovereign state, but a semiautonomous political entity controlled by individuals from the Islamic North who are more powerful than the state. President Tinubu cannot and should not allow such impression to develop because it will tarnish the image of Nigeria internationally. This possibility should not be discounted because the United Arab Emirates (UAE), an Islamic state, did not waste a minute in prosecuting six Nigerian sponsors of terrorism while Nigeria continues to hesitate to do so. If President Donald Trump of the United States had not spoke about the genocidal killings of Christians and warned about the possibility of intervention, it is doubtful whether the Nigerian Government would have waken up to its responsibility of protecting the citizens through mobilizing the military forces if President Trump had not beamed a search light on the issue of genocide. This is why many Nigerians are thankful to President Trump for compelling President Tinubu to pay attention to the insecurity in the country.

Fifteenth, a major difference between Fulani herdsmen, Boko Haram, ISWAP, Lakurawa, Ansaru, and Mahmuda Group and Niger Delta/South-South agitators is that the Islamists have a strong dislike for Western education, just like the Aghan Taliban while the agitators had a strong desire for the acquisition of Western education. This is why many former agitators went to school and even earned university degrees and certificates through specialized training in certain technical fields because they want to contribute positively to the development of society. On the other hand, the jihadists do not encourage the acquisition of Western education, hence, the Islamic North has the largest number of children who could barely read or write. The sad part of the campaign against Western education by Boko Haram and other jihadists is that the Arabs who spread Islam to Africa have a strong desire for their children to acquire Western education. The increasing technological development of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, and so forth, testifies to the desire of Islamic countries in other parts of the world to develop scientifically and technologically through the acquisition of Western education. It is ironic that the Arabs who spread Islam are desirous of enhancing their societies through acquisition of Western education while some Black African Muslims (Nigerians) who were Islamized by the Arabs oppose the acquisition of Western education. No wonder, the Islamic North continues to drag Nigeria backwards.

Sixteenth, it would be a major strategic miscalculation for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to grant amnesty to jihadists because they are waging a war based on Islamic tactics of warfare. In Islamic form of warfare, Tagiyya is a strategy of deception used to deceive the enemy by denying, lying, manipulating, and pretending until victory is achieved. Another tactic of warfare to deceive the enemy is to constantly call for peace talks or temporary cessation of hostilities through treaties. During such temporary cessation of hostilities, the Islamic forces reinforce and re-strategize to take the enemy by surprise with a much greater force. This tactic is known as Al-hudaybiyya. Therefore, when Sheikh Gumi and a host of Islamic leaders in the North call for amnesty, they are doing so to buy time to reinforce, re-strategize and remobilize to increase the level of attacks and overwhelm Nigerians. Consequently, it is foolhardy to grant amnesty to the violent groups when they have not demonstrated a desire to cease operations.

Conclusion

Based on the above discussion, there is no equivalence between the actions of the Niger Deta/South-South agitators and herdsmen, bandits, kidnappers, and jihadists who have inflicted so much carnage on the Nigerian state. The difference is demonstrated by the fact that the agitators easily agreed to a ceasefire, disarmament and amnesty in exchange for the Federal Government to address some of their grievances. On the other hand, Fulani herdsmen and Islamists are ideologically driven to destroy Nigeria and recreate it as an Islamic state.

It would amount to a monumental strategic failure for the Federal Government of Nigeria to grant amnesty to groups that are bent on destroying Nigeria by terrorizing the country to bring it to its knees. The jihadists are not interested in any peace that will not result in the Sharia and Islamization of the country, as directed by Sir Ahmadu Bello. Moreover, their agenda for Nigeria is supported by global jihadist groups and foreign countries that want to Islamize Nigeria. Thus, granting amnesty will provide them with the opportunity to re-strategize, reinforce and prepare for a much bigger offensive after having encountered resistance from the Nigerian populace.

Indeed, the ultimate goal of the jihadist groups is to transform Nigeria from a multireligious secular state into an Islamic state. They are very tactical in implementing the goal to avoid arousing Nigerians to react forcefully to stop them. Two of the principal instruments being used to trick and deceive Nigerians are taqiyya and Al-hudaybiyya. There is no doubt that a considerable number of the Northern Islamic elites support the jihad. This is why they do not want Nigeria to unleash the military against herdsmen bandits, and jihadists.

References

Abdulhamin, A. (2025, March 11). How banditry forced Kaduna, Zamfara, Katsina, Sokoto to shift grounds. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/how-banditry-forced-kaduna-niger-katsina-sokoto-to-shift-grounds/.

Babangida, M. (n.d.). Transcript of El-Rufai controversial statement about role of religion in Kaduna governorship. Premium Times. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/603158-transcript-of-el-rufais-controversial-statement-about-role-of-religion-in-kaduna-governorship.html?tztc=1.

Gumi insists on amnesty for bandits, says Nigeria is already in flames. (2021, March 5). Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/gumi-insists-on-amnesty-for-bandits-says-nigeria-already-in-flames/.

Crush bandits, don’t’ grant them amnesty. (2023, July 13). Punch. https://punchng.com/crush-bandits-dont-grant-them-amnesty/.

Fani-Kayode, F. (2019, November 11). The Children of Usman Dan Fodio and the Manifestation of the Fulani Empire. The Nigerian Voice. .https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/282849/the-children-of-usman-dan-fodio-and-the-manifestation-of-the.html: See also Star Weekly. November 10, 2019. https://saharaweeklyng.com/the-children-of-usman-dan-fodio-and-the-manifestation-of-the-fulani-empire/.

Grace, I. (2018, April 4). Why Boko Haram deserves amnesty – presidency. Daily Times. https://dailytimesng.com/boko-haram-deserves-amnesty-presidency/.

Idiri, A. (2025, December 19). Critics demand probe after academic calls Fulani armed groups ‘Freedom Fighters’. The Cabal. https://thecabal.ng/critics-demand-probe-after-academic-calls-fulani-armed-groups-freedom-fighters/.

It is Either the Koran or the Sword – Aliyu Gwarzo. (2014, October 2). Point Blank News. http://pointblanknews.com/pbn/articles-opinions/either-koran-sword-aliyu-gwarzo/.

Oyewole, B. (2014, December 24). Insurgency and Buhari’s Call for Full Sharia. Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2014/12/insurgency-buharis-call-full-sharia/.

Minchakpu, O. (2010). “Christian Leaders in Nigeria Call Bauchi Violence Premeditated”. Christian News Today. Archived from the original on 2014-07-13. Retrieved 2014-06-21.

Nigeria Risk Index. (n.d.). Northern Nigeria’s peace deals with bandits: Truce or time bomb. https://nigeriariskindex.com/news-insights/Insights/northern-nigerias-peace-deals-with-bandits-truce-or-time-bomb.

Oyeniran, A. (2024, October 27). Some hardliners in govt hell-bent on Islamizing Nigeria, Commodore Olawunmi raises the alarm. Independent. https://independent.ng/some-hardliners-in-govt-hell-bent-on-islamizing-nigeria-commodore-olawunmi-raises-the-alarm/.

Stop killing Boko Haram Members – Buhari tells FG. (2013, June 2). Point Blank News. htt://pointblannknews.com/pbn/exclusive/stop-killing-boko-haram-members-buhari-tells-fg.

Northern elders want amnesty for Boko Haram, don’t, they are criminals says Dr. Mohammed. (2015, May 24). Point Blank News. https://pointblanknews.com/pbn/exclusive/38867/.

Popoola, T. (2025, March 30). NEF gives Edo, FG 14-day ultimatum to prosecute northern hunters killers’. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/news/article/nef-gives-edo-fg-14-day-ultimatum-to-prosecute-northern-hunters-killers/.

The Christian Adoption of December 25 as a Christmas Day

By Priye S. Torulagha

The December 25, which is known as Christmas Day, is a pre-Christian (Pagan) religious festival which the Roman Catholic Church adopted and institutionalized as a Christian religious festival.

It was the day in which adherents of pre-Christian religions in the Middle East and Europe celebrated the winter solstice. During the occasion, the adherents honored their deities and feasted in a celebratory mood. For instance, the Jews celebrated the Festival of Light; the Germans celebrated the Yule; the Celts honored the deity Balder; the Scandinavians celebrated the sun god, and the Romans celebrated the Festival of Saturnia, where gifts were shared and given to the poor (Graves, 2007, June).

To understand why the Christian Church adopted December 25 as a Christmas Day, it is necessary to briefly explain the history and reason. It should be noted that the first time Christians were legally allowed to practice their religion in the Roman Empire was in 311 CE through the Edict of Serdica. This freedom was limited to the Eastern Roman Empire by Emperor Galerius. During this time, the Roman Empire was divided into the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople and the Western Roman Empire based in Rome. This meant that the Roman Empire had two emperors, one ruled in Constantinople and the other based in Rome.

Then, Emperor Constantine I, after negotiating with Emperor Licinius, formally legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE. This allowed Christians to openly practice Christianity without having to hide or be persecuted. Then in 325 CE, Emperor Constantine invited various Christian leaders to a conference in Nicaea. Three hundred bishops attended the conference which came to be known as the Council of Nicaea. It was in the Council of Nicaea that the official doctrine of Christianity was adopted. Thus, the Council of Nicaea formalized the doctrine of Christianity and the establishment of the Nicene Creed. It was also in this council that Jesus Christ was deified not only as a son of God but as a manifestation of God.

Having legalized Christianity, Emperor Constantine encouraged the widespread acceptance of the religion among Roman citizens. However, many Romans objected to Christianity and refused to convert to the religion. On the other hand, they eagerly celebrated their paganistic religious festivals, including the winter solstice on December 25. To encourage more people to adopt Christianity, Christian leaders decided to adopt some pagan rituals and festivals to encourage more people to convert to the religion. Thus, in 336 CE, Pope Julius I officially sanctioned the acceptance of December 25 as a Christmas Day. Thereafter, the festival which was associated with the winter solstice was now declared as the birthday of Jesus Christ, hence the Christmas Day. Before 336, there was no celebration of December 25 as a Christmas Day. The adoption of December 25 helped to increase the spread of Christianity in the Roman part of Europe.

Eventually, in 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius enacted the Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It should be noted that apart from the Christmas Day, the Christian Church also adopted the Easter, the cross, trinity and other rituals and festivals from pre-Christian North African, Middle Eastern and European religions.