MURIC Slams CAN Over Trump’s Redesignation of Nigeria as “Country of Particular Concern

The recent redesignation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” by former U.S. President Donald Trump has sparked fresh controversy in the nation, with the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) openly criticizing the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) for its alleged role in influencing the decision. The move by Trump, citing claims of Christian persecution in Nigeria, has been met with strong denials from the Nigerian government, while also stirring intense debates about the accuracy and implications of foreign interventions in Nigeria’s internal affairs.

MURIC Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, described the redesignation as “blurred, misplaced, and distorted,” arguing that it paints an inaccurate picture of the realities on the ground in Nigeria. According to Akintola, the decision not only misrepresents the nation’s religious dynamics but also risks fostering divisions that could weaken national unity at a time when internal cohesion is critically needed.

At the heart of the criticism is CAN, which Akintola accuses of presenting a one-sided narrative of violence in Nigeria. He claims that some Christian leaders, acting through the association, submitted petitions to the U.S. Congress portraying Christians as the sole victims of terrorism and violence in Nigeria, effectively sidelining the experiences of Muslims and other communities who also suffer from attacks by insurgents, bandits, and other criminal elements. Rather than providing a balanced account of the security situation, CAN allegedly amplified a narrative that gave disproportionate attention to Christians, thus influencing the foreign perception that led to the Trump administration’s designation.

“Instead of helping to correct misconceptions, CAN chose to emphasize a narrative that serves only one segment of our society,” Akintola said in a scathing statement. He urged Nigerians to focus on addressing internal challenges, particularly those posed by what he described as “fifth columnists” within the nation, rather than engaging in endless debates over foreign policy decisions imposed by external powers.

The MURIC leader’s comments have highlighted an often-overlooked aspect of the controversy: the domestic political implications of international designations. By framing the Trump decision as a direct consequence of CAN’s actions, Akintola is effectively questioning the motives and responsibilities of Christian leaders in Nigeria. He described the petitioning of foreign governments as “a betrayal of national interests,” arguing that it undermines the government’s efforts to maintain religious harmony and address security challenges without external interference.

Akintola did not hold back in condemning what he called the “Mother of all Betrayals,” referring to the act of taking Nigeria’s internal matters to the U.S., which he described as the “enabler of Gaza genocide.” His criticism extended to the political dimension of the issue, noting that the Nigerian government, under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, has made deliberate efforts to ensure fair representation of Christians in key government positions. According to Akintola, 62 percent of appointments have gone to Christians, and the First Lady has personally been generous in supporting Christian causes. Despite these gestures, CAN’s alleged actions have, in Akintola’s view, disregarded the government’s overtures and painted Nigeria as a nation hostile to Christians.

The controversy has opened up a broader debate about the role of religious organizations in shaping international perceptions and policies. MURIC’s statement reflects deep-seated frustration over what it perceives as selective advocacy that prioritizes the interests of one group at the expense of national cohesion. By publicly criticizing CAN, MURIC is also signaling a warning to other religious and civil society actors about the potential consequences of appealing to foreign powers in ways that may contradict national interests.

Observers have noted that the Trump administration’s designation could have far-reaching implications for Nigeria, including potential restrictions on foreign aid, trade considerations, and the international image of the country’s security and governance environment. While the Nigerian government has consistently maintained that no religious group is being disproportionately targeted, the controversy underscores the sensitivity of the nation’s religious and political landscape.

The tension between MURIC and CAN also raises questions about the effectiveness of religious lobbying in foreign capitals. CAN’s advocacy, intended to draw attention to the plight of Christians, has instead triggered accusations of bias and betrayal from other groups. Akintola’s statement suggests that the line between legitimate advocacy and actions that could be construed as undermining national unity is a thin one, requiring careful navigation by all religious organizations.

In addition to domestic reactions, the international community has been closely watching the situation. Human rights organizations, foreign governments, and international media have scrutinized both the Trump designation and Nigeria’s response. Critics of the U.S. decision argue that the labeling is overly simplistic, ignoring the complex security challenges in Nigeria that affect people of all faiths. Supporters of the designation, however, claim it is a necessary measure to hold Nigeria accountable for protecting its Christian population.

The controversy also highlights the delicate balance that Nigeria must maintain in its foreign relations. While the country continues to seek beneficial engagement with global powers, internal religious tensions and divergent narratives about security challenges complicate diplomatic interactions. Akintola’s call for Nigerians to focus on internal “fifth columnists” reflects a broader sentiment that national problems should be addressed internally without undue reliance on foreign interventions that may have unintended consequences.

For many Nigerians, the MURIC-CAN dispute is more than a disagreement over policy—it is a reflection of the ongoing struggle to define the country’s identity and priorities in a multi-religious society. With millions of citizens affected by insecurity, poverty, and political uncertainty, the debate over who speaks for Nigeria on the international stage is increasingly significant. Akintola’s comments suggest that any attempt to represent Nigeria abroad must be undertaken with careful consideration of all stakeholders, rather than privileging one group’s narrative over others.

As the debate unfolds, CAN has yet to publicly respond to MURIC’s allegations, leaving many observers to speculate on the potential political and social fallout. Analysts suggest that the controversy could affect interfaith relations, political alliances, and public perceptions of both religious bodies and the government. It also serves as a reminder of how global attention can amplify domestic disagreements, turning internal disputes into matters of international concern.

In conclusion, the MURIC criticism of CAN over the Trump redesignation of Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern” underscores the complexities of religious advocacy, national unity, and foreign policy in contemporary Nigeria. While CAN sought to highlight alleged Christian persecution, MURIC’s response frames the action as a misrepresentation that betrays the nation’s interests and ignores the contributions of the Nigerian government to religious inclusivity. The unfolding controversy highlights the delicate interplay between domestic affairs and international perceptions, emphasizing that in a nation as diverse and politically sensitive as Nigeria, actions taken in pursuit of advocacy must be weighed against the broader implications for national cohesion, security, and reputation on the world stage.