What is driving the violence against Christians in Nigeria?

On March 29, gunmen opened fire on residents who had gathered in the streets of Jos, the capital of Plateau state in north-central Nigeria, as worshippers were returning from Palm Sunday Masses in the Christian-majority Angwan Rukuba district.

The attack, which occurred in a densely populated civilian area, underscores the persistent violence that plagues parts of northern Nigeria, where assassinations, kidnappings and poor state protection continue to leave communities in a highly vulnerable situation.

As Nigeria mourns its victims, attention is once again focused on a country that, despite having one of the largest Christian populations in the world, is often ranked among the most dangerous places in the world for Christians.

To better understand the crisis, Omnes spoke with Dr. John Eibner, chairman of Christian Solidarity International, a historian and human rights activist who has spent decades documenting religious persecution throughout Africa.

Nigeria has a large Christian population, but it consistently ranks among the most dangerous countries for Christians. What specific factors make Nigerian Christians so vulnerable despite their numbers?

- There are two main factors that help explain why Nigerian Christians remain highly vulnerable to today's violence, despite their considerable numbers, not only in Nigeria, but in Africa as a whole.

The first factor is historical. During its northward expansion, the British colonial administration defeated the Sokoto caliphate in 1903. It then chose to govern Nigeria through Lord Lugard's policy of indirect rule. This approach unintentionally created a political structure that favored the Islamic north, often to the detriment of the various ethnic and tribal groups in the “central belt.” As a result, the foundations of the Nigerian state were flawed from the outset.

The second factor is ideological. Christians have generally followed biblical teachings that emphasize respect for the governing authorities, who are expected to protect the most vulnerable and ensure justice. Christianity also maintains a distinction between Church and State, unlike Islam, which can integrate religious and political authority.

Consequently, many Nigerian Christians have historically avoided active political participation, and the Church has largely stayed out of politics for decades. This lack of involvement may have had negative consequences, especially in a context where Islam often acts as a political force.

Who are the main perpetrators of violence against Christian communities and what are their respective motivations?

- The perpetrators of these attacks have been consistently identified by the Nigerian government, Islamic clerics and victims in the affected villages as Fulani Islamist militias. In some cases, the attackers themselves have posted videos on platforms such as TikTok and Facebook showing the ransom. Other evidence, including confession footage released by security agencies, further supports these claims. Their kidnapping operations and propaganda videos also reveal the scale of their weaponry and their ability to overrun communities.

These attacks do not resemble spontaneous clashes between herders and farmers. The attackers do not arrive as herders involved in disputes over pasture, but rather burst into villages in large numbers, on motorcycles, heavily armed and organized, resembling coordinated military raids. This calls into question the characterization of the violence as mere “clashes between herders and farmers”.

The Nigerian government has also acknowledged the presence of terrorist groups such as Ansaru, Lakurawa and Jama'at Nasr al-Islam wal Muslimin (JNIM), an Al Qaeda affiliated organization operating in the Sahel, which are involved in attacks in the Middle Belt region of Nigeria.

In this region, Christian communities are specifically targeted. In several cases in Plateau State, attacks have targeted Christians, while Muslims in the same communities have been unharmed. There are also reports of Muslim neighbors, many of them also farmers, who have protected their Christian neighbors during these attacks. Taken together, these patterns suggest a deliberate and targeted campaign against the Christian population.

Attacks against Christians in Nigeria are often described as ethnic or land-related rather than purely religious. Does that distinction influence the response of the international community?

- Labeling attacks as “ethnic” or “land-related” may obscure the extent to which religious ideology can also be a motivating factor. Critics argue that framing the violence primarily as «herder-farmer clashes» or competition over resources reduces the perception of the need for international intervention and may shield both the perpetrators and state authorities from further scrutiny.

Islamist Fulani militias have been accused of attacking Christian villages in Nigeria's «Central Belt,» and many local communities do not view these attacks as isolated incidents, but as part of a longer historical trend. Oral traditions recount similar raids in the 19th century in which villages were attacked, people were displaced and people were captured for slavery. For communities that resisted Islam and later adopted Christianity, the current violence is often interpreted as a continuation of those earlier conflicts.

Observers highlighting this perspective argue that the massacre of Christians perpetrated by these armed groups differs considerably from the commonly portrayed image of herders engaged in spontaneous disputes with farmers. Instead, they describe these groups as well-organized militias equipped with advanced weaponry, including drones, night-vision equipment, large-caliber rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. These groups are said to be capable of carrying out coordinated attacks against multiple villages, often conducted at night, with limited intervention or response by state security forces.

This distinction is important because the way in which violence is characterized directly influences international policy responses. If it is viewed primarily as a crime problem or a conflict over resources, the crisis is more likely to be treated as a domestic governance issue. If, on the other hand, it is recognized as ideological or organized sectarian violence, it may lead to greater diplomatic pressure, targeted sanctions, or increased scrutiny of the Nigerian government's response.

Among the many Christian communities affected, the continued use of narratives focused on resource conflicts reinforces the perception that both national and international actors have failed to fully recognize the nature of the threat they face.

The «Central Belt» region of Nigeria has become the epicenter of anti-Christian violence. What is it about that particular region that makes it so unstable?

- It is important to put this issue in context. Not only did the region resist the spread of Islam and the jihadist movements of the 19th century, but states such as Benue and Plateau have for decades consistently demanded greater regional autonomy. Instead of identifying itself with the constitutionally recognized «North Central Nigeria», the region has resisted this classification.

Since independence, this designation has often been perceived as a political tool used by the northern establishment, historically linked to the Sokoto caliphate, to consolidate its electoral clout in the National Assembly in response to what is seen as southern political dominance.

In this context, efforts to exert control over the «Central Belt,» particularly over its predominantly Christian communities, can be interpreted in two ways: historically, as a continuation of long-standing jihadist ambitions that were curbed during British colonial rule; and, today, as part of a struggle to maintain political and demographic influence.

In this context, tensions in the «Middle Belt» are sometimes interpreted as a broader dispute over values and governance, as some proponents of sharia-based governance view Christian institutions and Western-influenced civic structures as incompatible with their religious and social framework.

Some analysts point to the expansion of the Fulani into Christian agricultural areas as one of the factors fueling violence in the Central Belt. To what extent are land and resource disputes a root cause, and how does religion play a role in the conflict?

- Many analysts do not critically examine the historical context and background of these issues. Instead, they often approach them from an academic perspective based on published research or journal articles, or rely on media platforms that use commentators to discuss these developments. In doing so, they often come to the politically convenient conclusion that competition for territorial resources is the root cause.

Traditional Fulani herders form a nomadic pastoral community and historically have not owned land in the Middle Belt region. As migrants, they do not seek permanent land ownership and do not stay in one place for long periods of time. Historically, conflicts between pastoralists and farmers have arisen when livestock encroach on farmland. Traditional leaders have long been responsible for mediating and resolving these disputes, a role they have played for decades.

Many analysts focus on the violence from 2000 onwards, overlooking the fact that these events are part of a deeper and more entrenched religious and political divide inherited from British colonial rule. Three years after independence in 1960, Nigeria's political system collapsed and, after three years of unrest, civil war broke out in 1967. During this conflict, nearly one million people died, many of them Christians from the southern region.

The war is often said to reflect a broader division between the Muslim north and the Christian south. While some analysts may overlook this history, many Nigerians who lived through the post-independence period remember it with great clarity. Ignoring this context in addressing current crises risks misdiagnosing the problem and seeking solutions that are unlikely to be effective.

How is the international community responding to the violence and what would an effective response look like?

- The hope, resilience and sustenance that Christians have received over the past decade have come largely from international churches, Christian organizations and individual believers. Much of this support has been vital to many families. It has included emergency food aid, medical supplies and payment of medical bills, educational materials and, most importantly, economic empowerment projects that have helped families begin to rebuild their lives after the losses they have suffered. In addition, psychosocial support has also played a key role.

Western governments have provided military support to the Nigerian military, especially in the fight against Boko Haram in the northeast. However, as far as local communities know, hardly any of that support has been earmarked to help communities in the «middle belt».

A significant response on the part of the Nigerian government would be to allocate federal funds for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of destroyed villages in the Central Belt region. These reconstruction projects should be implemented by local community development associations and overseen by the communities themselves. This approach would promote transparency and allow the government to oversee the process, thus reducing the potential for corruption among some officials.

The government should also create a special tribunal to try terrorism cases so that justice is perceived to be done. History shows that peace is unlikely to be achieved and the chapter closed when justice has not been done. Without accountability, there is considerable risk that such violence will resurface in the future.

---

Author's note: The interview responses have been summarized for reasons of length and readability, while retaining their original intent and content.