Nigeria enters this decisive moment carrying the weight of truths already laid bare. Last week’s conclusion made clear that the killings are known, the perpetrators identifiable, and the costs of silence intolerable. What confronts us now is what those realities mean for the future of Christians and for the survival of the Nigerian state itself. Violence against Christians has ceased to be an episodic failure; it has become a structural indictment of the nation’s moral and constitutional order. The massacres, displacements, razed villages, and desecrated churches are not isolated horrors but symptoms of a deeper corrosion at the heart of citizenship. When people are hunted on their farms, abducted from their homes, or driven from ancestral lands because of their faith, the injury extends beyond the dead and the displaced. It strikes at the very idea of equal belonging. A state that cannot protect life without discrimination forfeits legitimacy, and a society that normalises such loss fractures its social contract. Trust erodes. Rights become contingent. The promise of a shared future dissolves into fear. This concluding reflection, therefore, turns not merely to what has been endured, but to what lies ahead because a country that fails to act after recognition does not merely hesitate; it chooses decline.
Our country stands at a perilous crossroads, where violence against Christians has ceased to be an aberration and has become a damning indictment of its very foundations. The killings, the displacements, the razed communities, and the gutted churches are not isolated tragedies. They expose fissures deep within Nigeria’s political and cultural identity. A nation cannot endure when its citizens are slaughtered for their faith while the state proves too weak, too unwilling, or too compromised to shield them. Murder is never only an attack on individuals; it is an assault on the constitutional framework that binds a nation together. When Christians are killed on their farms, abducted from their homes, or hunted from their ancestral lands, the reverberations extend far beyond the immediate loss. It signals that citizenship is tiered, that some communities enjoy the full weight of state protection while others are left exposed to predation. The legitimacy of the state, in any plural society, rests on its capacity to provide security without discrimination. Once that guarantee collapses, the victims are not only those whose lives are taken, but the entire polity that loses confidence in its institutions. Trust erodes, rights become negotiable, and the promise of a shared future dissolves into fear and deeper dangers.
The greater danger lies in what such unchecked violence reveals about the internal architecture of the state. A country that allows targeted killings to persist is not merely failing in its duties; it is exposing a structural contradiction within its identity. When the state hesitates to act decisively, when perpetrators escape justice, and when whole communities are abandoned to violence, it becomes evident that the protection of citizens is filtered through political, religious, or cultural lenses. In such a context, the state no longer functions as an impartial guarantor of security; it becomes a contested arena in which competing identities dictate who lives safely and who does not. This is how nations slide from fragility into fragmentation: regions behave like quasi-sovereignties, non-state actors assert imperial authority, communities withdraw into self-help arrangements, and citizens redefine loyalties along ethnic or religious lines rather than national ones. A country in this condition is not only bleeding; it is drifting toward a future in which the centre can no longer hold.
The human cost of this drift is incalculable. Children grow up in fear, schools remain closed or destroyed, and families are torn apart, not only by loss but by the knowledge that justice is absent. Generations inherit trauma as a permanent legacy; their
understanding of society is shaped not by the promise of protection but by the omnipresence of danger. Communities that should be hubs of culture, faith, and social cohesion become fortified enclaves, turning inward, wary of outsiders, and resigned to survival by any means necessary. Such a society loses the capacity for empathy, solidarity, and shared purpose—the very elements that sustain nations beyond mere geography.
The scale of the killings is staggering. The Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa reports that more than sixteen thousand Christians were killed between 2019 and 2023. Thousands more were abducted. Entire villages in the North Central and North East regions have been emptied of their Christian populations. These figures are devastating not only because of their magnitude but also because they trace a pattern. What emerges is a slow, methodical, and relentless campaign of destruction. It is a genocide that moves quietly but persistently, consuming communities one village at a time. But numbers alone do not tell the story. What is unravelling is the idea of Nigeria itself. Violence of this scale is never the work of isolated criminals. It reveals a structural problem that Nigeria has refused to confront. Unless the country faces this truth now, its survival is not assured.
Francis Deng, writing about Sudan decades ago, described a country divided not only by geography but also by identity. One part was shaped by a state that drew legitimacy from an Islamic ethos. The other part aspired to a secular and inclusive political order. Deng’s analysis was prophetic for Sudan, and it applies with an unsettling prophecy to Nigeria. Though Nigeria is wrapped in the same constitution, it houses two incompatible visions of statehood. One part of the country draws its political and cultural authority from religious identity. The other remains committed to a secular understanding of citizenship. These contradictory visions clash, collide, and ultimately undermine the cohesion of the country.
Violence against Christians is one outcome of this unresolved contradiction. In regions where Islamic identity shapes political legitimacy, Christian communities often find themselves vulnerable. Their political voice is weaker. Their social standing is fragile. Their physical safety is never guaranteed. Their persecution becomes easier to rationalise and their sufferings easier to ignore. The state’s uneven response reflects this imbalance. Protection becomes selective. Justice becomes uncertain. Citizenship becomes unequal.
The problem is deeper than a simple division between the North and the South. The northern region itself contains layered and conflicting identities. Dominant sects have persecuted Muslim minorities. Larger majorities have suppressed ethnic minority groups. Intra-Islamic tensions simmer beneath the surface and occasionally erupt. These tensions do not reduce the severity of Christian sufferings; they intensify it. A state that is fractured within its dominant bloc cannot guarantee neutrality across the entire federation. Without neutrality, the secular promise of the Nigerian Constitution collapses.
The consequence is what we witness today. The country behaves as if it were two nations stitched together under a single flag. One is a secular republic on paper. The other is a state influenced heavily by religious identity. The result is paralysis. Where the identity of the state is contested, the protection of minorities becomes negotiable. Where citizenship is filtered through faith, equal belonging becomes impossible. This structural contradiction fuels impunity. Killers roam freely because, in the unspoken logic of a divided country, their crimes do not threaten it. They threaten only the other nation that exists within the same territory. When Christian villages are wiped out in Plateau, Kaduna or Benue, what is destroyed is not merely human life. It is the fragile belief that
Nigeria operates as one collective political community, with every unpunished massacre that belief fades. With every displacement, the idea of national unity becomes a dream.
When the idea eventually collapses, the consequences are predictable. Countries built on contradictory identities often break apart. Sudan did. Yugoslavia did. Ethiopia struggles under similar pressures today. Lebanon has lived for decades in suspended fragmentation. Nigeria is not immune. The displacement of millions, the rise of community self-defence networks, and the creation of religiously homogeneous enclaves all reflect a country drifting towards internal borders. These borders are not drawn on maps. They are drawn in fear and mistrust.
So, whither Nigeria?
If Christian communities can no longer live safely in regions where they have lived for generations, the question before us is not merely about human rights. It is existential. A country that cannot secure pluralism cannot secure unity. A country that cannot protect all citizens equally cannot endure. A country that refuses to confront its foundational contradictions becomes a country preparing for its own undoing. Protection must therefore move beyond rhetoric. Counting the dead without safeguarding the living is an illusion. Naming perpetrators without prosecuting them is complicity in slow motion. Calling for unity without addressing the identity conflict at the heart of the country’s existence is an evasion of responsibility.
Nigeria must choose what kind of state it wants to be. Will it, in a real sense, remain a secular republic that protects all citizens regardless of their faith? Or will it evolve into a country where religious identity determines safety, legitimacy, and belonging? The fantasy that both models can coexist indefinitely is collapsing under the weight of graves. Christians cannot wait for theoretical clarity while facing annihilation. They need security now. They need justice now. They need full and equal citizenship now. Anything less pushes Nigeria towards a point where coexistence becomes impossible.
The question of whither Nigeria is not an academic one. It is urgent. Either the country confronts its dual identity and commits politically and constitutionally to a secular and protective state, or it continues down a path where violence becomes the language through which unresolved identity conflicts are expressed. At the end of that path lies fragmentation.
Many countries of the world survive not by proclaiming unity but by protecting it. If Nigeria fails to safeguard its Christian citizens, it is failing its own constitutional promise. It is also abandoning the very idea of itself as a plural and democratic state. The future of the country depends on whether it can confront the truth of its divided identity and build a state where no citizens fear for their lives because of faith. Nigeria stands at a crossroads. One path leads to renewed protection, deeper inclusion, and national cohesion. The other leads to distrust, division, and eventual disintegration. The choice is clear. Leadership must rise to the moment. Accountability must be enforced.
Citizens must insist on equal protection. The survival of Nigeria depends on it. If Nigeria is to survive as a unified polity, the path forward requires more than acknowledgement; it demands decisive, structural action. Security cannot be outsourced to occasional interventions or limited religious advocacy alone. The state must reaffirm its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, ensuring that no citizen lives under the shadow of impunity. Institutions must operate impartially, justice must be swift and visible, and the machinery of governance must be rebuilt on the principle that protection is a right, not a privilege. Without this, the cycle of violence will not merely continue—it will accelerate, eroding the bonds that hold society together. The future of Christians in Nigeria, and indeed the future of Nigeria itself, depends on the courage to confront this reality today before it becomes irreversible tomorrow.
Whither Nigeria?
Abdul Mahmud, a human rights attorney in Abuja, writes weekly for The Gazette