10/12/2025
Alleged Christian Genocide: Reconciling Anagbe’s Pains and Kukah’s Reasoning
By PJ Usanga
In recent months, the question of whether a Christian genocide is unfolding in Nigeria has reached the forefront of international debate, triggered in part by strong allegations made by U.S. President Donald Trump and emerging divergences in the positions of leading Nigerian Bishops. On one hand stands Bishop Wilfred Chikpa Anagbe, CMF, of the Catholic Diocese of Makurdi, who issues harrowing testimonies of systematic targeted attacks on Christians. On the other, Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto, offers a more nuanced, less categorical framing—acknowledging violence but tending to reject the label of full-blown religious genocide. It is therefore important to interrogate how these two voices reflect different dimensions of a complex crisis, and what their divergence means for Nigeria, the church and the world.
Setting the Scene: The Allegation of Christian Genocide
In November 2025, Donald Trump declared that “record numbers of Christians” were being killed in Nigeria and that the U.S. might intervene militarily if the Nigerian government failed to act. Nigeria’s government responded by rejecting the characterization of the crisis as a faith-based genocide, emphasizing the complexity of violence and the plurality of victims.
The core questions raised by this argument include:
Are Christian communities being targeted specifically because of their faith, rather than as collateral victims of broader insecurity?
Is the violence systematic and state-complicit (as genocide would imply), or is it more diffuse, attributable to a combination of terrorism, criminality, ethnicity and resource conflict?
What responses are credible; International intervention? Sanctions? Dialogue and reform?
Against this backdrop, the contrasting testimonies of Bishop Anagbe and Bishop Kukah become especially significant.
Bishop Anagbe: A Voice Crying Out from the Middle Belt
A. Testimony of Horror
Bishop Wilfred Anagbe, leading the Makurdi Diocese in Benue State (a region often described as Nigeria’s “Christian heartland”), has been vociferously outspoken. He has repeatedly insisted the violence is less about farming-herder economics and more about religion. For example:
“When you eliminate people who are not confrontational to you, who didn’t provoke you, and there’s no war, it’s an agenda they have to do.
“They want to Islamise Nigeria, to transform it into the Islamic State of West Africa. It is a jihad, a war of ethnic cleansing, a genocide.”
He cites raw figures: between 2018 and 2025 in his diocese he says about 19 parishes and a convent were lost; hospitals and clinics closed because of attacks by "Fulani terrorist herdsmen."
For example, he recounts a June 2025 attack on Yelwata village where reportedly 150–200 people were burned alive. An incident he uses to justify his genocide language. He explicitly rejects alternative explanations of the violence:
“It is not the climate. It is not a conflict of interests. It is a direct attack on innocent citizens.”
And then:
“How many mosques have been attacked compared to the number of Catholic or other Christian churches that have been burned down? How many Imams have been kidnapped?”
On Government and Silence, Bishop Anagbe has been sharply critical of the Nigerian federal and state governments:
“Our national government has not shown convincing signs or real commitment to ending the killings. The inaction and silence about our plight… prompts me too often [to] conclude that there is [a] conspiracy of silence.”
He has said that what is being done in Benue is a Church under Islamist extermination.
Calling for international Advocacy, Bishop Anagbe has taken his plea outside Nigeria, testifying before U.S. and UK parliamentary audiences. His bold stance has brought support but also backlash: e.g., the Muslim Public Affairs Centre (MPAC) called his U.S. congressional testimony misleading.
Inside Nigeria, his stance has reportedly placed him at risk: church leaders issued statements expressing concern for his safety after embassy warnings of a possible arrest warrant if he returned from abroad.
Interpretation
Anagbe’s argument can be summarized as follows: In regions of the Middle Belt (Benue, Plateau, Taraba, etc), Christian-majority farming communities are being attacked, displaced and killed by militant actors (Fulani herdsmen, Islamist extremists). These attacks are not simply resource disputes but part of a broader religious-ethnic conquest. According to Anagbe, that qualifies as genocide. His appeal is urgent: world bodies must act, or Nigeria’s disintegration will accelerate.
Bishop Kukah: A More Nuanced And Cautious Voice
Acknowledging Concern
Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah, leading the Sokoto Diocese (in predominantly Muslim North-West Nigeria), certainly acknowledges serious violence and persecution:
“Nigerians are dying unacceptable deaths across the country, not only because of their religion but also their ethnicity. We are in the cusp of a weak state with a clear lack of capacity to arrest the descent into anarchy.”
He has previously stated in interviews:
“In Sokoto, we do not have a problem with persecution. … We rather have problems with restrictions on freedom. … We have friendly relations with Muslims.”
Rejecting Simplistic “Religious Genocide” Labels
Bishop Kukah’s major difference with Bishop Anagbe lies in the framing. He argues that while violence against Christians is real, it is inaccurate and counter-productive to label the situation as a Christian genocide. He has said:
“We are not dealing with people going around wielding machetes to kill me because I am a Christian. I live and work in Sokoto, right in the womb of Islam, where collaboration between Christians and Muslims remains possible.”
He warns that designating Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” or branding the crisis as genocide could do more harm than good:
“Such a designation will only increase tensions, sow doubt, open windows of suspicion and fear … What Nigeria needs now is vigilance and partnership, not punishment.”
Focus on Weak State, Governance Failure, Ethnicity, Banditry
Rather than emphasizing a faith-based genocide, Kukah highlights root-causes: weak institutions, corruption, ethnicity, resource competition and jihadism that kills both Muslims and Christians. He argues this conflated narrative of Christian genocide risks ignoring the multi-dimensional nature of Nigeria’s crisis.
Bishop Kukah’s position can be summarized as: yes, there is targeted violence against Christians in parts of Nigeria, but it does not neatly fit into the legal and moral framework of genocide as systematically state-orchestrated mass extermination of a religious group. He urges support for the Nigerian government to strengthen governance and security, rather than international isolation or labeling which could inflame inter-religious tensions.
Reconciling the Two Perspectives: Pain and Reasoning
Both bishops recognise violence, displacement and insecurity. They both call for stronger government action and more protection of vulnerable communities. Both voices lament that too many Nigerian lives are being taken with impunity. They both equally appeal to the international community for awareness and support.
Key Divergences
Labeling: Bishop Anagbe uses the word “genocide” explicitly and sees a faith-based agenda; But Bishop Kukah cautions against that label and prefers to frame the crisis more broadly.
Targeting: Bishop Anagbe emphasizes Christian farming communities specifically targeted due to their faith; though Bishop Kukah acknowledges Christian vulnerability but argues many victims are Christians and Muslims alike, and that the violence cannot be reduced to religion alone.
International strategy: Bishop Anagbe pushes for external pressure, international advocacy, possibly sanctions; but Bishop Kukah warns that punitive measures or designations may exacerbate violence and harm inter-faith progress.
Why the Difference Matters
Regional context: Bishop Anagbe’s diocese is in the Christian-majority Middle Belt where attacks on Christian farmers and church properties have been flagged; while Bishop Kukah is in a Muslim-majority region where Christian minorities live in an environment of coexistence but also serious constraints. Their experiences differ.
Strategic implications: If one accepts Bishop Anagbe’s framing, then international actors may feel compelled to intervene, sanction or redesignate Nigeria. If one aligns with Bishop Kukah, then the focus shifts to strengthening internal governance, dialogue and nuanced reform rather than external blame.
Internal church unity and credibility: The divergent voices raise risks of fragmentation within the Christian leadership: one wing wants naming and shaming; the other wants cooperative reform. The message to victims, governments and international partners may become confused.
Impacts on inter-religious relations: Labeling the crisis as Christian genocide may escalate suspicion among Muslim communities, reinforcing fears of victim-narrative abuse. Conversely, rejecting such a label may be seen by victims as minimizing their suffering.
Evaluating the Evidence and Challenges
Strengths of Bihop Anagbe’s Argument
He provides vivid, first-hand accounts of villages destroyed, churches closed, clinics shut down, displacement of Christian communities. He challenges narratives reducing the violence to herder-farmer clashes or climate change. His consistency and willingness to speak internationally have raised the profile of this human rights issue.
Strengths of Bishop Kukah’s Argument
He draws attention to broader causation: state capacity, corruption, ethnicity, multiple faith victims—thus offering a more holistic perspective. He emphasizes ongoing inter-faith cooperation in places like Sokoto and warns against escalation of narratives that create polarization. He warns of unintended consequences of international designations, which is a valid concern in fragile states.
Critical Gaps and Open Questions
Definition of genocide: Under the Genocide Convention, genocide involves intent “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such”. Establishing state orchestration, policy of elimination, etc., is difficult in Nigeria’s complex environment.
Data-credibility: Reliable independent data on how many Christians have been killed because they are Christian versus being victims of broader conflict is limited. Differentiating religious motive is difficult.
Overlap of motives: Many of the attacks cited by Bisho Anagbe occur in contexts of farmer-herder conflict, land displacement, criminal banditry, which may have religious overtones but may also be driven by competition for land, cattle, climate, etc.
Risk of narratives driving policy blind spots: If the label “Christian genocide” becomes entrenched without nuance, there’s a risk of foreign policy responses that do not address root causes (governance, corruption, poverty) and maybe even exacerbate sectarian divides.
Where to from Here: Pathways and Recommendations
For Nigeria’s Government
Acknowledge fully that Christian communities in parts of the Middle Belt feel under siege, and investigate alleged patterns of targeted attacks.
Strengthen rule of law: prosecute perpetrators, secure displaced persons’ return, rebuild destroyed parishes, clinics and farms.
Ensure inclusive security: protect all citizens—Christians, Muslims alike—while ensuring religious freedom is upheld in practice.
Review the application of Sharia or other laws in states, and reinforce constitutional secularism as many observers (including Bishop Kukah) recommend.
For the Church and Religious Leaders
Maintain unity: the Christian leadership must reconcile differences in framing while preserving a common front for victims’ protection and justice.
Empower local victims: ensure pastoral support, trauma counselling, rebuilding of community infrastructures (schools, clinics) in affected districts.
Promote inter-faith dialogue: particularly in regions like the north where Christian minorities live alongside Muslims, dialogue can reduce suspicion and strengthen community resilience.
For International Actors
Support reform and capacity-building rather than punitive isolation: as Bishop Kukah argues, Nigeria needs partnership more than stigmatization.
Improve data collection and verification: independent human rights monitoring of religiously-motivated violence is essential to clarify motives and guide proper international response.
Recognize nuance: avoid framing Nigeria’s crisis purely as a “Christian genocide” if evidence is incomplete—it may undermine credibility and inflame divisions.
Encourage Nigeria’s government to act through diplomacy and trade incentives rather than unilateral military threats, which risk backlash.
Pain, Reasoning and the Path Forward
To reconcile Bishop Anagbe’s pain and Bishop Kukah’s reasoning is to recognize both the urgency of suffering and the complexity of the Nigerian context. Bishop Anagbe’s testimony gives voice to communities in acute crisis, Christian farms destroyed, displaced children, emptied churches — urging that the world listen now. Bishop Kukah cautions that while the crisis is serious, the framing must be precise and the response must build bridges, not widen fractures.
The tragedy, however, is that Nigeria cannot wait for perfect consensus. Whether labelled genocide or a complex multi-vector conflict, thousands of lives are being lost, communities displaced, and trust in the state weakened. The dual challenge is to acknowledge the specific faith-based dimension of Christian vulnerability while also addressing the root structural governance failure that fuels violence in Nigeria.
The way forward lies in a three-pronged approach: (1) protection and relief for victims, (2) accountability and justice for perpetrators, and (3) institutional reform to prevent future collapse of the social contract. The international community must tread carefully — uncompromising on victim protection but humble in its narratives and smart in its strategy.
In Nigeria’s Middle Belt, under the leadership of Bishop Anagbe, a generation fears that silence is complicity. And in the north, under Bishop Kukah, many fear that wrong labels will deepen the divide. Both cries need to be heard. The question is: will Nigeria and the world respond with both urgency and wisdom?
