society
Truth Under Fire: Bishop Matthew Kukah’s Clarification on Christian Persecution in Nigeria from Context, Controversy and Consequences. By George Omagbemi Sylvester
Truth Under Fire: Bishop Matthew Kukah’s Clarification on Christian Persecution in Nigeria from Context, Controversy and Consequences.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
“How misrepresentation, insecurity and national debate collided around one of Nigeria’s most respected moral voices and what it reveals about the country’s struggle with violence, religious harmony and truth.”
In a nation grappling with deep insecurity, sectarian violence and rising global scrutiny, one of Nigeria’s most prominent clerics (Most Rev. Matthew Hassan Kukah) has found himself at the eye of a media storm. Reports circulating in recent weeks claimed that Bishop Kukah “MADE A U-TURN” and denied that Christians are persecuted in Nigeria. These claims gained rapid traction online and triggered widespread public emotion, frustration and critique within Christian communities at home and among the diaspora. But the story (when examined closely, thoroughly and with context) reveals both serious misreporting and the larger fault lines in Nigeria’s national discourse on security and religious freedom.
In reality, Bishop Kukah unequivocally denied ever saying Christians are not persecuted in Nigeria. Far from dismissing the suffering of religious communities, he argued against simplistic labels like “GENOCIDE” or selective narratives that detract from deeper causes of insecurity and called for unity, accountability and disciplined civil engagement. His clarification, issued directly from his own statement and multiple reliable media reports, must be understood in full.
The Mischaracterisation and Kukah’s Response. The controversy stems from remarks the Bishop made in various settings, including at the launch of the Aid to the Church in Need’s World Report on Religious Freedom at the Vatican and at a Catholic convention in Kaduna. Some media outlets selectively quoted him questioning widely circulated figures (including claims that 1,200 churches are burned each year) and suggesting that no one had accurately engaged the Catholic Church on these numbers. This was portrayed by critics as a denial of Christian persecution.
Bishop Kukah responded with a formal clarification, titled “Of the Persecution of Christians in Nigeria: My Response,” where he stated he was “BAFFLED” that despite the clarity of his position, people continued to attach to him a claim that he said Christians were not persecuted. “Nothing could be further from the truth,” he insisted. He explained that his remarks were mischaracterised and taken out of context.
Kukah emphasised that his comments were about disagreements over language and labels (such as the difference between persecution, genocide and systemic violence) and that calling for precision in language does not equate to dismissing the reality of suffering. Across all his speeches, he has consistently recognised the ongoing attacks, killings, abductions and church burnings impacting Nigerian communities.
Laying Out the Context: Nigeria’s Insecurity Crisis. To understand why this debate matters so deeply, it is important to situate Bishop Kukah’s comments within the broader reality of Nigeria’s insecurity. Over the last decade, Nigeria has endured attacks from extremist groups, bandits, militant herders and other armed actors that have disproportionately affected rural and religious communities. Many international policy analysts have argued that these attacks (particularly in the Middle Belt and northern regions) carry clear patterns of targeting minority populations, including Christians.
For example, testimony before the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee highlighted how militant extremist outfits and organised armed groups have attacked farming communities (with many victims identifying as Christians) and have displaced millions. These attacks often push populations off ancestral lands, fuel humanitarian crises and disrupt civic life across ethnic and religious communities.
Groups such as Open Doors, a respected international research body on religious freedom, have consistently reported that Nigeria ranks among the world’s most dangerous countries for Christians due to targeted violence linked to extremist and insurgent activity.
Yet, Nigerian governing authorities (including Abuja’s leadership) have repeatedly criticised the use of terms like “GENOCIDE” or “RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION” as oversimplified or politically motivated, insisting that insecurity affects all citizens irrespective of faith. These official positions have contributed to passionate debates about how best to describe and respond to violence.
Why Language Matters: PERSECUTION vs. GENOCIDE. One core aspect of Bishop Kukah’s message is his insistence on accurate language as foundational for moral clarity and constructive policy responses. Contrary to claims that he denies persecution, Kukah’s argument is that terms like “GENOCIDE” have specific legal and philosophical definitions (requiring proof of intent to eliminate a group) which cannot be loosely applied without robust evidence.
“Killing 10 million people still does not amount to genocide, if the intention to eliminate a group is absent,” he said, emphasising the need for careful, disciplined discourse rather than inflammatory rhetoric.
This distinction is not trivial. In international law, as defined under the GENOCIDE CONVENTION, genocide is a specific crime that requires intent to destroy a national, religious or ethnic group in whole or in part. Misuse of such terms can distort public understanding and impede accurate reporting, advocacy and diplomacy. Bishop Kukah’s point (misunderstood by many) reflects this complexity and insists that serious claims require serious evidence.
Uproar and Backlash: Public Reaction vs. Intent. The misreporting sparked intense criticism from Christian advocacy groups and ordinary Nigerians, with many accusing Kukah of abandoning moral leadership or aligning with political power. Social media conversations multiplied allegations that the Bishop had “LOST HIS MORAL COMPASS” by questioning narratives of persecution, with some voices resorting to personal attacks rather than constructive debate.
These reactions, while emotionally powerful, often overlook two critical points: First, the Bishop has repeatedly affirmed the existence of violence against Christians; and second, he has urged unity not division, within and between faith communities. His clarification stressed that trauma and suffering must not be dismissed by debates over terminology, but that precision allows solutions to be targeted and sustainable.
Scholarly and Expert Perspectives. Experts in religious freedom and conflict analysis have noted that Nigeria’s situation defies simplistic categorisation. Dr. Nina Shea, a leading expert on religious liberty, has testified before international bodies on how Nigeria’s violence involves layers of pastoralist-farmer conflict, jihadist terrorism and weak state responses, all intersecting with religious identities.
Shea and others have pointed out that systematic violence against Christian communities often stems from the failure of the Nigerian state to protect vulnerable populations and the activities of militant groups that exploit ethnic and religious fault lines. These perspectives align with Bishop Kukah’s broader concern about insecurity, even if they differ on how to label the violence.
Beyond legal definitions, respected theologians argue that speaking about persecution has spiritual and moral weight. Theologian Miroslav Volf wrote that “truth without compassion, like compassion without truth, does not save us” though highlighting the need for accurate understanding and empathetic responses to human suffering.
What This Means for Nigerians and the World. At stake in this debate is more than a semantic argument. It is a reflection of how Nigeria (one of Africa’s largest democracies and most religiously diverse nations) confronts violence, protects minorities and navigates competing narratives.
Misreporting and sensationalism undermine constructive dialogue. When leaders like Bishop Kukah are misconstrued, the public discourse can quickly polarise, eroding trust and distracting from urgent calls for accountability, reform and effective security policy.
Kukah himself has emphasised that Nigerians must transcend victimhood to demand transformations in governance, civic culture and national identity. True leadership, in his reckoning, arises not from political grandstanding but from disciplined, honest appraisal of challenges and collective action towards peace, a message resonating far beyond Nigeria’s borders.
A Parting Thought.
The controversy over Bishop Matthew Kukah’s remarks on Christian persecution in Nigeria reveals deeper truths about the country’s struggle with insecurity, identity and public discourse. While misinterpretations sparked justified emotional responses, a careful look at Kukah’s own statements shows an unwavering recognition of suffering and a call for unity, accurate language and collective responsibility.
In a world where violence against religious communities is both a local tragedy and a global concern, leaders must be judged not by headlines but by the full context of their words and the integrity of their intentions. Nigeria’s future depends on clarity, courage and commitment to justice; principles Bishop Kukah has articulated, even amid misunderstanding.
Westpaq International Opens State-of-the-Art Energy Industry Training Facility in Lagos
Lagos, Nigeria – January 30, 2026 – Westpaq International, in partnership with Subsurface Consultants and Associates (SCA), has opened a cutting-edge Energy Industry Training Facility at Eko Atlantic City, Lagos. The facility is designed to enhance capability development, leadership, and transformation in the energy sector, catering to integrated energy companies, service providers, and regulatory agencies.
The official opening ceremony was attended by Bradley McKinney, Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for the U.S. Commercial Service, who was joined by the U.S. Chargé d’Affaires, Consul General, senior officials from Commercial Services, and representatives from the U.S. Embassy and Consulate.
“This training facility is a significant milestone in our efforts to support the growth and development of the energy industry in Nigeria,” said a representative from Westpaq International. “We are committed to working with our partners to build local capacity and drive innovation in the sector.”
Following the ribbon-cutting ceremony, DAS McKinney led a round table discussion with representatives of leading US energy and services companies operating in Nigeria, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Schlumberger, Halliburton, and Westpaq International. The discussion focused on collaboration opportunities, challenges, and ways to support the growth of Nigeria’s energy industry.
The Energy Industry Training Facility is equipped with state-of-the-art technology, providing a unique learning environment for professionals in the energy sector. The facility will offer a range of training programs, workshops, and seminars to enhance technical skills, leadership development, and industry best practices.
For the 2026 Training Catalog, visit https://www.scacompanies.com/attachment/702/show.pdf
society
Senate Blocks Mandatory Electronic Transmission of Election Results: Implications for Nigeria’s Electoral Integrity
Senate Blocks Mandatory Electronic Transmission of Election Results: Implications for Nigeria’s Electoral Integrity
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG
“As the Senate rejects compulsory digital reporting of votes, Nigeria faces renewed debates over transparency, security, and public trust in its democratic processes.”
In a landmark yet controversial decision, the Nigerian Senate has voted against the compulsory electronic transmission of election results, a move that has reignited the long-standing national debate over the integrity and transparency of electoral processes. The decision, which was widely anticipated by political analysts, has drawn mixed reactions from civil society groups, election monitors, and political stakeholders. While proponents of the Senate’s stance cite concerns over security and technological readiness, critics argue that the rejection risks perpetuating inefficiencies and undermining public confidence in Nigeria’s democracy.
The Senate, acting on a bill proposed to institutionalize the electronic transmission of results as mandatory for all elections, voted decisively against making the technology compulsory. Advocates of the measure had argued that such a system would minimize human interference, reduce delays in vote counting and ensure timely dissemination of results to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the electorate. However, senators opposing the bill raised apprehensions about cybersecurity threats, infrastructural inadequacies and the potential for technological malfunctions during critical electoral exercises.
“This decision signals a cautionary approach by our lawmakers,” remarked Professor Festus Iyayi, a noted political scientist at the University of Lagos. “While the intention to secure elections through electronic means is laudable, the infrastructure and human capacity to implement it nationwide remain limited. Until these foundational gaps are addressed, mandating such a system could introduce more chaos than clarity.”
The Nigerian political landscape has historically been marked by electoral controversies, ranging from ballot manipulation to delayed result announcements. The 2023 general elections, which were plagued by logistical challenges and sporadic violence, underscored the need for reform in the transmission and verification of results. Proponents of compulsory electronic transmission contend that the adoption of secure digital channels would mitigate these recurrent challenges, increase voter confidence and align Nigeria with global best practices in electoral management.
Dr. Amina Waziri, a governance and elections expert at the Centre for Democratic Development in Abuja, emphasizes the transformative potential of technology in strengthening democratic institutions. “Electronic transmission of results is not merely a technical upgrade; it is a tool for accountability,” Waziri asserted. “Countries across Africa, including Ghana and Kenya, have adopted similar systems to significant effect. Nigeria’s rejection of compulsory electronic transmission delays its entry into this new era of transparent governance.”
Security concerns, however, remain central to the Senate’s rationale. Senators cited the potential vulnerability of digital systems to cyberattacks, manipulation and unauthorized access. In a country where political tensions often escalate rapidly, the fear that election results could be tampered with electronically is not without precedent. Moreover, rural constituencies with limited internet connectivity present additional logistical challenges, raising questions about equitable implementation across Nigeria’s 36 states.
The National Electoral Commission (INEC) has, for years, advocated for the modernization of election processes, emphasizing that technology can enhance efficiency and public confidence. INEC’s previous pilot programs with electronic transmission, although successful in select constituencies, highlighted both the promise and the challenges of scaling the system nationwide. Professor John Olorunfemi, a senior analyst at the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies, notes, “The technical feasibility exists in urban centers and well-equipped districts. The critical question remains whether this can be replicated uniformly across remote areas without disenfranchising voters.”
Political reactions to the Senate’s decision have been sharply divided. Opposition parties and civil society organizations have criticized the rejection as a missed opportunity to institutionalize transparency and reduce electoral malpractices. “This is a step backward for Nigeria’s democracy,” declared Dr. Chinyere Okafor, spokesperson for the Nigerian Electoral Reform Coalition. “We cannot continue to rely solely on manual processes prone to human error and manipulation. The electorate deserves a system that guarantees accuracy, speed and accountability.”
Conversely, some legislators defended their position, arguing that rushing technology adoption without adequate safeguards could jeopardize electoral credibility. Senator Olusegun Balogun, one of the vocal opponents, stated, “We are not against progress, but we must be pragmatic. A nationwide system that fails on election day will do far more damage than benefit. Let us first address infrastructural gaps and train personnel before mandating electronic transmission.”
The decision also reverberates internationally, drawing scrutiny from election observers and governance watchdogs. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation and largest economy, often serves as a benchmark for democratic practice across the continent. As Dr. Michael Kofi, a senior analyst at the African Governance Institute, notes, “The credibility of Nigeria’s elections has regional implications. Electronic transmission is a standard adopted by several democracies to mitigate fraud. The Senate’s rejection delays Nigeria’s alignment with these global norms.”
Beyond technical and security considerations, the debate touches on broader societal and political dimensions. Electronic transmission of results is seen by many experts as a critical instrument for reducing the influence of political godfathers and local power brokers who have historically manipulated manual result collation. By ensuring immediate reporting from polling units to central servers, the system can reduce opportunities for vote inflation, result alteration and intimidation.
Yet, the Senate’s cautious stance may reflect a deeper concern over the pace of technological adoption in governance. Nigeria’s experience with digital systems in other sectors (ranging from financial services to civil registration) has been uneven, often complicated by cyber fraud, poor internet penetration and insufficient regulatory oversight. These realities underscore the complexity of introducing a high-stakes system like electronic result transmission in a politically charged environment.
Legal experts also highlight that the rejection does not entirely foreclose technological innovation in elections. INEC retains the authority to deploy electronic transmission as a voluntary or supplementary mechanism, meaning that gradual adoption remains possible. “The Senate has opted for caution, not prohibition,” explains Barrister Emeka Uche, a constitutional law specialist. “The commission can still leverage technology incrementally, allowing lessons to be learned and adjustments made before nationwide implementation becomes mandatory.”
As Nigeria prepares for upcoming gubernatorial and local elections, the Senate’s decision will likely shape both the operational strategy of INEC and the expectations of the electorate. Transparency advocates warn that without decisive reforms, public trust in electoral outcomes may remain fragile, perpetuating cycles of skepticism, protests and litigation.
Ultimately, the rejection of compulsory electronic transmission underscores the tension between ambition and pragmatism in Nigeria’s democracy. It reflects a legislature cautious of technological vulnerabilities, yet it also highlights the persistent struggle to modernize political processes in the face of infrastructural limitations. As Professor Festus Iyayi aptly concludes, “Nigeria stands at a crossroads. Embracing technology is essential for credible elections, but doing so without preparation could undermine the very integrity it seeks to protect. The path forward requires both vision and discipline.”
The decision carries profound implications for the evolution of Nigeria’s democratic practices. For citizens, it is a reminder that the fight for electoral transparency is ongoing, shaped not only by technology but also by political will, institutional capacity and civic engagement. For policymakers, the challenge remains clear: to reconcile the promise of innovation with the realities of implementation, ensuring that every Nigerian’s vote is counted accurately, efficiently and securely.
In conclusion, the Senate’s rejection of compulsory electronic transmission of election results represents both a pause and a warning. While it reflects a legitimate concern over readiness and security, it also delays the adoption of a system that could substantially reduce electoral malpractice and enhance public confidence. The coming months will test Nigeria’s ability to balance caution with reform, ultimately determining whether its democratic institutions can modernize in tandem with public expectations and global standards.
EPSTEIN FILES EXPOSE SECRETED SCHEME TO CASH IN ON LIBYA’S BILLIONS
By George Omagbemi Sylvester | Published by SaharaWeeklyNG
“How newly released documents reveal an attempted exploitation of Libya’s frozen wealth before and after Gaddafi — and what it means for justice, sovereignty, and global finance.”
In one of the most startling and geopolitically charged revelations of the decade, newly released documents from the Epstein Files (a vast tranche of records linked to the late financier Jeffrey Epstein) have unveiled a clandestine blueprint to profit from Libya’s immense frozen state assets during a period of political upheaval that began in 2011. More than a decade after the overthrow and death of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, these records outline plans that, if carried out, risked transforming a nation’s sovereign wealth into the private windfall of global financiers, intermediaries, and former intelligence operatives. The implications extend far beyond financial opportunism, touching the core of international law, post-conflict reconstruction and the fragile sovereignty of states emerging from chaos.
Libya’s Frozen Fortune: The Lure of Billions.
At the heart of these revelations is an email dated July 2011 sent to Epstein by an associate that outlines a proposal to pursue access to Libyan state assets that were frozen abroad in the wake of the NATO-backed uprising that toppled Gaddafi. At the time, the United Nations imposed freezes on Libyan assets under Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, designed to limit the Gaddafi regime’s access to funds during the conflict. However, this freeze also created a pool of state wealth (estimated at around $80 billion, including $32.4 billion held in the United States) that was suddenly susceptible to external legal and financial manoeuvring.
According to the email, the actual value of what was described as “sovereign, stolen and misappropriated” assets could be three to four times larger than the $80 billion figure, suggesting a potential trove exceeding hundreds of billions. “If we can identify or recover just 5 to 10 percent of these monies and receive between 10 and 25 percent as compensation, we are talking about billions of dollars,” the correspondence stated, framing the operation as a lucrative business opportunity rather than a sovereign asset recovery.
The email went further, painting a picture of Libya as not only a ripe target for asset recovery but also a future hub of investment: one that, if engaged early, could “become their go-to guys” for reconstruction work. The correspondence noted projections that Libya would need to spend at least $100 billion on rebuilding its economy and infrastructure, positioning the scheme as a gateway into a multi-billion-dollar market tied to reconstruction and legal services.
Former Spies and International Networks
What transforms this from opportunistic financial speculation into a geopolitical intrigue is the involvement of former intelligence personnel. The email references preliminary discussions with former agents from Britain’s MI6 and Israel’s Mossad, and suggests that some members expressed willingness to help identify and trace Libyan assets abroad is a stark illustration of how intelligence networks can be folded into private financial projects that operate in the grey intersection of influence, law and power.
The use of former intelligence officials in legal and asset-recovery matters is not inherently illegitimate; in many cases, their expertise in tracing financial flows and navigating international systems can aid legitimate restitution efforts. However, in the context of this proposal (where the stated objective was profit extraction for private benefit unaffiliated with Libya’s legitimate government) the lines between recovery, coercion, and exploitation become perilously blurred.
Sovereignty, Asset Recovery and International Law.
The emergence of these documents has reignited a long-standing debate over sovereign asset freezes and the ethics of asset recovery. Scholars and policy experts emphasize that frozen funds belong to the people of the state in question, and that any recovery or release should serve the sovereign interests of that nation and not the private ambitions of third parties. According to analysis published by the International Crisis Group, efforts to reform sanctions and allow asset reinvestment must be conducted with “the consent of Libya’s legitimate authorities,” and designed to benefit the Libyan people rather than external interests.
The complex legal landscape surrounding frozen Libyan assets has already resulted in numerous litigations. Libya has fought cases in European courts, including against global finance giants such as Goldman Sachs, while also seeking pathways to unlock portions of its sovereign wealth for national development and economic revival. However, political fragmentation (a persistent challenge in Libya’s civil conflict) has frequently stalled progress, underscoring how easily frozen assets can become political bargaining chips rather than tools for reconstruction.
As legal expert Mohammed bin Shaaban observed in recent reporting on Libya’s asset situation, the maze of international litigation and competing claims has left much of the country’s wealth inaccessible and shifts in governance further complicate matters. Such dynamics underline the inherent risk when third parties position themselves as intermediaries in sovereign matters without clear legal mandate or ethical grounding.
Libya’s Fragile Context and Corruption Complexities
Understanding the Epstein scheme also requires acknowledging the broader context of Libya’s political instability and deeply entrenched corruption.
Transparency International consistently ranks Libya among the lowest globally on the Corruption. Perceptions Index, a stark reflection of systemic governance challenges since Gaddafi’s fall. That corruption has extended into the management of state resources and has complicated efforts to ensure that any recovered assets serve the public good rather than private pockets.
This offers a sobering backdrop to the Epstein correspondence. What might at first appear as financial opportunism can also be interpreted (in the harshest light) as a schemed attempt to exploit both the political disarray and the legal ambiguity surrounding Libya’s frozen assets for private advantage. In environments where rule of law is weak and sovereign authority is contested, external actors can, intentionally or otherwise, exert disproportionate influence over outcomes.
Ethics of Engagement and the Limits of Opportunism.
The revelations raise essential questions about ethical boundaries in international finance and asset recovery. The stated willingness of international law firms to work on a contingency fee basis (paid only upon success) reflects common practice in asset litigation. Yet the inclusion of such firms alongside former intelligence operatives underlines how humanitarian, legal and economic projects can be co-opted into efforts aimed at generating private profit under the guise of public service.
Experts argue that genuine asset recovery should be driven by transparent legal frameworks, international cooperation and unwavering commitment to justice for victimized populations. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and other multilateral bodies have long emphasized that illicit financial flows hamper development and that asset recovery must be anchored in lawful restitution not speculative gain.
The Road Ahead: A Cautionary Tale for Post-Conflict Economies.
The Epstein Files revelations about Libya serve as a potent reminder of the perils facing nations emerging from conflict: when enormous sovereign wealth is frozen or in legal limbo, it attracts not only legitimate legal claims but also those driven by speculation and profit. What should be a process grounded in restoring national wealth and dignity can become a theatre for the powerful to profit off instability.
In a world grappling with conflict-induced asset freezes (from Libya to other nations displaced by war or sanctions) the imperative is clear: international law and ethical standards must protect sovereign assets, ensure their return benefits the people to whom they belong, and guard against schemes that would commodify national misfortune into private fortune. Only through principled engagement and rigorous accountability can the promise of rebuilding shattered states be realised without handing over their priceless heritage to opportunists.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
Business6 months agoBatsumi Travel CEO Lisa Sebogodi Wins Prestigious Africa Travel 100 Women Award
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING