Trump Reacted Based On U.S. Congressmen Who Relied On False Reports From IPOB”

 

Bola Tinubu’s Government Says Donald Trump Reacted Based on U.S. Congressmen Who Relied on False Reports From Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB)

Date: November 4, 2025

Source: Sahara Reporters

An aide to President Tinubu, Daniel Bwala, speaking on Russia’s national television, said the following:

• The Nigerian government has asked President Trump to respect Nigeria’s sovereignty and to refrain from any plans involving U.S. military boots on Nigerian soil.  
• Bwala dismissed the allegations of “Christian genocide” in Nigeria as part of a coordinated media campaign aimed at portraying the Tinubu administration as anti-Christian.  
• He claimed that reports which Congressmen in the U.S. used to make decisions were based on data submitted by IPOB, a separatist group in Nigeria, and that these reports were false.  
• According to the statement:
  “The decision of President Trump is anchored on the various tweets and pushes by congressmen. And the congressmen rely on a data and report that were submitted by a separatist group … called the IPOB … which is false …”  
• Bwala described two reports:
  
1. A report by Inter‑Society for Civil Liberties and Human Rights that alleged killings of IPOB members in the southeast by Nigerian forces and claimed the members had “Jewish history and tradition”.  
2. A report by Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa which indicated the highest number of killings were of “people who did not identify as Christian or Muslim”, followed by Christians, then Muslims — but still concluded there was Christian genocide.  
• 
  
• Bwala questioned how one could write a report that finds multiple religions/groups affected, yet still claim “Christian genocide”. He attributed this narrative amplification to IPOB and noted it influenced parts of the Republican Party in the U.S., including – per his claim – Ted Cruz and others.  
• He emphasized that Nigeria is focused on solutions not just problems:
  “There have been killings in Nigeria because of the exceptional situation that we found ourselves. Our government has made massive progress in the fight against insecurity. And we’re calling on Donald Trump to assist us with military apparatus … We do not need the boots of the American soldiers in our soil. There has to be a respect of our territorial integrity.”  

Key take-aways / context:

• The Nigerian government is explicitly pushing back against claims of targeted Christian genocide, arguing that the security challenges affect multiple religious and ethnic groups.
• They are also challenging the origin and reliability of the data being used in U.S. policymaking and media narratives — claiming that a separatist group (IPOB) coordinated or influenced these narratives.
• The issue sits in a broader diplomatic context: previously, the U.S. (under Trump) had threatened military action or withdrawal of aid over what it described as Nigeria’s failure to protect Christians.  
• Nigeria’s government is stressing the importance of respecting sovereignty and indicates willingness to cooperate with foreign assistance — but not with unilateral military intervention on Nigerian soil.

• 
  

  1. The narrative begins with certain U.S. lawmakers and commentators asserting that Christians in Nigeria are being systematically targeted — e.g., Ted Cruz introduced a bill claiming the Nigerian government is facilitating anti-Christian violence.  
  2. In response, Mohammed Idris (Nigeria’s Minister of Information) publicly declared that these claims are based on “faulty data” and that violence in Nigeria is complex, affecting both Christians and Muslims.  
  3. Moreover, commentary pieces (e.g., from Al Jazeera) argue that framing Nigeria’s security crisis solely as Christian genocide ignores the many dimensions of conflict in the country — ethnic, geographical, resource-based, herder-farmer, etc.  
  4. Recently, under the US presidency of Donald Trump, Nigeria was designated a “Country of Particular Concern” (CPC) for alleged religious-freedom violations and threats of U.S. military action were raised.  
  5. Nigeria’s government reacted strongly — rejecting the notion of Christian genocide, refusing unilateral foreign military boots on Nigerian soil, but expressing willingness to cooperate on terrorism and security if sovereignty is respected.  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  🧭 Major reactions & stakes

  
  

  
  

  
  

  Nigerian government

  
  

  
  

  • They say the claim that only Christians are being killed is “false”.  
  • They assert the violence is indiscriminate, affecting multiple faiths, and driven by insurgency, banditry and communal conflict — not solely anti-Christian genocide.  
  • They emphasise Nigeria’s constitutional guarantee of religious freedom and say state-sponsored persecution of Christians is “impossible”.  
  • They caution that using the genocide narrative may inflame religious tensions domestically.  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  U.S. / International

  
  

  
  

  • Some U.S. lawmakers claim large numbers of Christians have been killed in Nigeria — figures which Nigeria’s government disputes.  
  • The CPC designation by the U.S. adds diplomatic pressure on Nigeria. Nigeria says it will work with the U.S. but not at the expense of its sovereignty.  
  • Analysts warn that framing the issue as Christian genocide without solid data may distort the underlying violence and hamper effective responses.  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  ⚠️ Key issues and implications

  
  

  
  

  • Data reliability: Many of the claims rely on figures and reports whose methodology has been questioned. Nigeria’s government says some U.S. lawmakers are relying on “faulty data”.  
  • Complexity of violence: In Nigeria, violence is not always religiously motivated — it may stem from land disputes, climate change pressures, herder-farmer conflict, insurgency, regional imbalances. Oversimplifying it as Christian genocide can mislead.  
  • Sovereignty vs intervention: Nigeria welcomes assistance but draws a red line at foreign troops or intervention that doesn’t respect national sovereignty. This sets a diplomatic tension with the U.S. when military threats are raised.  
  • Domestic cohesion risk: If communities believe the state favours one religion, or if external narratives fuel sectarianism, there is a risk of deeper internal fragmentation or violence. Nigeria’s officials warn of this.  
  • International image & diplomacy: The CPC designation and military threat affect Nigeria’s global image and its appeal to foreign partners/investors. Handling the narrative carefully is important for the government.

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  
  

  🎯 Why this matters & what to watch

  
  

  
  

  • This is not just about Christian vs Muslim — it has implications for how foreign governments shape policy (e.g., aid, sanctions, intervention) based on perceived human-rights issues.
  • How Nigeria responds will influence internal stability: will it accelerate reforms, improve transparency on security data, strengthen inter-faith relations?
  • The narrative matters: portraying Nigeria as a “Christian genocide” zone may change external actors’ behaviour (aid, military posture) and domestic groups’ responses (victimhood, agitation).
  • The role of separatist groups and internal critics: Nigeria’s government says groups like Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) are involved in amplifying some claims.  
  • The data gap: Independent and robust research into religious-based violence in Nigeria is still developing. Future investigations could clarify many of these claims.