PFN and Islamic Council clash over security crisis in Nigeria
The Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria (PFN) and the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) are publicly at odds over how to characterise the security crisis in Nigeria.
PFN, represented by its President Bishop Francis Wale Oke, has asserted that there is an ongoing “Christian genocide” in Nigeria. He argued that the scale and persistence of attacks on Christian‐majority communities such as those in Benue, Plateau, Southern Kaduna and the Owo church massacre reflect a pattern of violence targeting Christians. Bishop Oke said these incidents, where tens of thousands are reportedly killed and hundreds of churches burnt, cannot simply be dismissed. He emphasised that: “To every honest Nigerian, there is no controversy about whether there is genocide against the church and Christians in Nigeria.”
In contrast, the NSCIA, with its Secretary‐General Prof. Ishaq Oloyede speaking, strongly rejected the genocide label. The Council described the violence as a national security challenge not a religious war. They said framing it as genocide is misleading, politically motivated, and harmful to national unity. They asserted that the underlying drivers include poverty, environmental factors, migration and criminal opportunism rather than a concerted campaign against Christians by Muslims.
The disagreement exposes a deeper tension in national discourse: whether the many violent episodes across Nigeria should be treated primarily as acts of religious persecution or as manifestations of broader security and socioeconomic collapse. PFN insists the religious dimension is central. The NSCIA argues that emphasising religion risks misdiagnosing the crisis and undermining efforts at cooperation. The Council also warned that foreign actors, lobbyists or media may be exploiting the “religious genocide” narrative for political or financial gain.
While both organisations express concern over the killings and attacks, their differing frames matter because they influence how solutions are proposed. PFN’s framing suggests increased focus on religious protections, minority rights and possibly foreign intervention. The NSCIA’s framing points toward national policy responses to insecurity, poverty alleviation, border control, and unified security strategy. For the government and other stakeholders, these divergent views complicate the path toward consensus and coordinated action.
