Friday, December 26, 2025
By A.A. Elemonsho
Many Nigerians and Africans have been misled into believing that recent hostile rhetoric and strategic interest directed at Nigeria particularly framed around "protecting Christians" is driven by genuine concern for religious freedom. History, geography, and global power behaviour suggest otherwise.
The idea that any Western power, especially the United States, intervenes militarily or strategically out of religious love is not supported by historical evidence. The United States does not move troops, intelligence assets, or strategic pressure without clear geopolitical, economic, and military objectives. When religion is invoked, it is almost always a justifying narrative, not the true motive.
Why Sokoto Does Not Fit the 'Christian Persecution' Narrative
If the primary goal were truly to protect Christians in Nigeria, Sokoto State would not be a logical focal point.
From both historical records and lived military experience, Sokoto has never been a major theatre of Christian–Muslim conflict in Nigeria. Unlike Kano or Jos where religious and ethnic clashes have historically occurred, Sokoto's security challenges have largely involved intra-Muslim violence, banditry, and criminal insurgency, not systematic targeting of Christians.
I served approximately ten years in the Nigerian Army, deployed across multiple northern states in counter-insurgency and internal security operations. Throughout that period, Sokoto was never identified operationally as an anti-Christian stronghold. Christians lived, worshipped, traded, and served in public institutions there without organized religious persecution.
Yes, the tragic killing of Deborah Samuel Yakubu in May 2022 occurred in Sokoto State. That incident was criminal, unlawful, and profoundly condemnable. Importantly, it was publicly condemned by Islamic scholars, traditional rulers, politicians, and civil society across Northwestern Nigeria, who declared it un-Islamic and a violation of both faith and law. Since then, there has been no pattern or continuation of anti-Christian violence in the state.
One isolated atrocity however horrific, does not transform a state into a religious war zone, nor does it justify foreign strategic militarisation.
The Strategic Geography the Narrative Ignores
Sokoto's real significance is not religious, it is geographical.
Sokoto shares proximity with regions bordering Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali, three countries that have recently rejected Western military dominance and French political influence through military-led governments. These states represent a growing anti-imperialist bloc in the Sahel, openly challenging Western security architecture in Africa.
If foreign troops were truly coming to Nigeria to protect Christians, North-Central Nigeria with its documented religious fault lines, would be the rational location for any protective presence. Sokoto makes sense only as a forward operating environment, a logistical corridor, or a staging ground for influence and pressure against Sahelian states that have slipped out of Western control.
A Pattern Africa Has Seen Before
Africa has seen this playbook repeatedly:
1. Humanitarian or religious concern is announced
2. Military or strategic presence follows
3. Resources, influence, and political leverage are extracted
4. The host nation is left weaker, more unstable, and divided
France's recent loss of control in the Sahel has not ended Western interest, it has merely shifted tactics. Where France retreats, allied powers adjust. The United States does not operate in isolation; global alliances coordinate interests.
Nigeria's Role and the Tragedy of Leadership Complicity
It is deeply troubling that Nigeria risks being used as a harbour, base, or proxy against fellow African nations pursuing political independence from Western dominance.
Even more tragic is the possibility that Nigerian leadership may be complicit—not for national interest, but for regime security. Across history, insecure governments have traded sovereignty for external backing to guarantee political survival. Fear of liberation movements spreading, fear of coups, and fear of losing power. These anxieties often push leaders into dangerous alliances.
When foreign powers guarantee political stability, democracy becomes secondary. Elections become predictable. Eight years in office becomes assured, but at the cost of national dignity and human lives.
What Nigeria Gains and What It Loses
Nigeria gains very little from such arrangements. Britain and the United States already exert overwhelming influence over Nigeria's political economy. Significant portions of Nigeria's resources are externally controlled, while emerging minerals like lithium and gold are tied into global power competition involving China, whom the U.S. avoids direct confrontation with.
The worst outcome for Nigeria is not invasion it is prolonged instability. Foreign powers rarely clean up the messes they create. They extract intelligence, resources, and leverage, then exit. Leaving behind deeper insecurity, radicalisation, and civilian casualties. Innocent Nigerians will pay the price for geopolitical games they never consented to.
The Bigger African Cost
Two major consequences loom for Africa:
1. Liberated Sahelian states may face indirect or direct destabilisation, using neighbouring countries as pressure points.
2. Other African nations considering political independence will be discouraged, watching what happens when defiance meets retaliation.
Africa's liberation movements do not fail because they are wrong; they fail when fellow Africans are used against each other.
My Last Questions
Why do global leaders play chess with human lives?
Why are African leaders willing to mortgage their people's future for temporary political survival?
And most painfully if Nigeria, the so called Giant of Africa, becomes a tool of re-colonisation, what hope remains for the continent?
Africa does not lack resources.
Africa does not lack intelligence.
Africa lacks leadership willing to place people above power.
Until that changes, the continent will remain a battlefield not of religion, but of interests.
