The Misuse of “Genocide” in Nigeria’s Public Discourse

na_logo

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get Daily News, Tips, Trends and Updates in your mailbox

Latest News

The Right Place for you comfort furniture's

Living Room

We offer a wide variety of furniture for homes and offices

Dinning Set

We provide stylish and high-quality dinning interior furnishing solutions.

Bedroom

We manufacture and produce complete bedroom furniture and interior furnishing products.

Share

Join us in a transformative journey towards better care for Deltans and support for all.

Contextualizing The Horrific Killings in Nigeria Within The International Convention Against Genocide

By Wale Alonge

Since President Donald Trump’s 2020 threat to “invade Nigeria” to stop what he called “the targeted genocide of Nigerian Christians by Muslims,” the term genocide has gained sudden, viral currency across Nigerian social media. It is now used casually, cavalierly, and often without any understanding of its historical roots or the international legal framework that defines it.

When such a morally charged word is used loosely, it dilutes its moral and legal force — and makes enforcement far more difficult in genuine cases of genocide. That is why it is critical to define and apply it precisely, something sorely lacking in Nigeria’s public conversations.

It is deeply ironic that the same President Trump who refuses to describe the state-sponsored mass killing, starvation, and displacement of Palestinians in Gaza as genocide was so quick to use the word for Nigeria’s communal violence.

I am a Christian, so this is not a case of a non-Christian downplaying the killings of Christians. There is no doubt that many Nigerian Christians have been victims of murderous attacks by Islamist jihadist groups — often targeted specifically in their houses of worship. Only yesterday, reports emerged from Kwara State of Christians being slaughtered and kidnapped in church.

But so have Muslims — indeed, in larger numbers according to widely available data — including many attacked in mosques. These killings are largely random, carried out by non-state insurgents and criminal militias using hit-and-run, opportunistic tactics, often also targeting government forces. There is no demonstrated element of state-sponsored intent to destroy a protected group, which is central to any credible genocide claim.

What “Genocide” Actually Means

The word itself derives from the Greek genos (“tribe” or “race”) and the Latin caedere (“to kill”). Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin coined it during World War II, and in 1946 the United Nations General Assembly first recognized genocide as an international crime. It was later codified in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Article II of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group:

  • Killing members of the group
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm
  • Deliberately inflicting conditions of life aimed at destroying the group
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births
  • Forcibly transferring children to another group

The most difficult and crucial element is intent. Genocide requires a proven intention to physically destroy a protected group — not merely to displace it, weaken it, or target individuals for other reasons. This “special intent” (dolus specialis) distinguishes genocide from other international crimes.

Nigeria’s Reality

Every innocent life unjustly taken is one life too many. Nothing in this analysis minimizes the suffering of Nigerian Christians killed or displaced by jihadists or murderous Fulani militias that have devastated farming communities — particularly in the Middle Belt — through cycles of violence stretching back decades.

But as horrific as these crimes are, to call them genocide is to misapply the term. The Genocide Convention arose from the ashes of the Holocaust — the targeted, systematic, state-orchestrated extermination of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany. That context matters.

Nigeria’s insecurity is a grave humanitarian crisis, but not one that fits the legal or moral definition of genocide. The danger in misusing the word lies not just in linguistic carelessness, but in the erosion of its power to mobilize international justice where it is most needed — in places where governments, not bandits, plot the destruction of entire peoples.

If we are to confront Nigeria’s violence meaningfully, we must name it for what it is: terrorism, mass atrocity, and state failure — not genocide. To do otherwise cheapens both the suffering of the victims and the gravity of one of humanity’s most serious crimes.


Adewale Alonge, PhD, Founder & President, Africa Diaspora Partnership for Empowerment and Development. www.adped.org, writes in from Dadeland, Miami, Florida, USA.


Related Post