The Honourable Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, who made the declaration on behalf of the Federal Government, congratulated all Christians in Nigeria and in the diaspora on the joyous occasion of Easter.

Dr. Tunji-Ojo urged Nigerians to imbibe the virtues of selflessness, forgiveness, forbearance and love as exemplified by the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

He urged Nigerians to remain committed to the values of tolerance and community that keep us together as a nation.

He reiterated that the goal of the government remains taking decisions that would bring about national rebirth, economic growth, and shared prosperity.

He wished all Christians a peaceful and joyous Easter celebration.

The post FG Declares Public Holidays to mark Easter celebration appeared first on Daily Dates Nigeria.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by President Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump)

Yet, beyond the social media skirmishes and emotional exchanges, Trump’s statement reveals something deeper: a familiar pattern in the United States’ dealings with Africa. It is the weaponization of crisis narratives—whether framed as human rights violations, religious persecution, or authoritarianism—to justify interference, delegitimize leadership, and ultimately gain influence over the continent’s natural and strategic resources.

Trump’s sudden “concern” for Nigerian Christians is not an isolated outburst. It fits into a long history of American strategic communication, where moral rhetoric masks geopolitical ambition. The same method has been applied, with devastating consequences, in Sudan, Libya, and Egypt.

Sudan: Sanctions, Secession, and the Gold-Oil Equation

Sudan offers a textbook case of how Washington’s moral posturing often conceals material interests. Once oil was discovered there in commercial quantities, the U.S. shifted from engagement to isolation. In the 1990s, when Sudan drew closer to China for oil development, Washington retaliated by designating it a “state sponsor of terrorism.” Economic sanctions crippled Sudan’s economy for decades.

The Darfur conflict in the early 2000s was subsequently cast in U.S. media and diplomatic circles as “genocide”—a term with powerful emotional pull. While there were undeniable atrocities, the selective outrage conveniently weakened Khartoum and paved the way for further Western leverage.

In 2011, with U.S. backing, South Sudan seceded from the North. The event was hailed internationally as a victory for self-determination. Yet, the result was two unstable states locked in economic and political disarray. The oil-rich South lacked infrastructure and governance, while the North lost critical oil revenue. The region remains fragile, but multinational companies gained easier access to its oil and gold wealth through new contracts and “peace” interventions.

Today, as Sudan endures another violent internal war, one constant remains—the external appetite for its resources, especially gold. Instability has made extraction and export less traceable, more profitable for global actors operating behind humanitarian façades.

Libya: From African Powerhouse to Western Playground

If Sudan’s story was slow manipulation, Libya’s was swift destruction.
Before 2011, Libya under Muammar Gaddafi stood as Africa’s wealthiest nation by GDP per capita. The country provided free healthcare, education, and generous social welfare programs. But more significantly, Gaddafi began championing a Pan-African financial system—including a gold-backed dinar—to reduce Africa’s dependence on the U.S. dollar and Western-controlled financial institutions.

Then came the Arab Spring. What began as protest movements in Tunisia and Egypt morphed into a Western-backed revolution in Libya. Washington and its NATO allies accused Gaddafi of mass atrocities against civilians. Citing the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine, NATO launched a bombing campaign under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

But the mission was anything but humanitarian. Gaddafi was killed, Libya’s government collapsed, and militias fractured the nation. The once-stable state was plunged into chaos, becoming a hub for arms smuggling, human trafficking, and terrorism. Western oil interests, meanwhile, re-entered under favorable terms through intermediaries.

The so-called liberation of Libya achieved three things for the West:

1. The elimination of an African leader advocating continental financial independence.
2. The fragmentation of a resource-rich nation into competing zones.
3. The reassertion of Western control over North African oil and Mediterranean trade routes.

More than a decade later, Libya remains divided, unstable, and exploited—a warning of what happens when external “humanitarianism” masks imperial ambition.

Egypt: The Quiet Control of Strategic Dependency

Egypt’s case is more subtle but no less telling. Since the 1970s, Cairo has been among the largest recipients of U.S. military aid—over $1.3 billion annually. This aid effectively ties Egypt’s defense and foreign policy to Washington’s strategic interests, particularly concerning Israel and the Suez Canal, one of the world’s most critical trade routes.

When the Arab Spring reached Egypt in 2011, Washington initially supported protesters demanding Hosni Mubarak’s resignation. But when Mohammed Morsi, a democratically elected leader, began charting an independent foreign policy, U.S. support quickly evaporated. After the military coup that removed Morsi in 2013, the U.S. quietly resumed business with Egypt’s new rulers.

This dual standard—supporting democracy only when convenient—reveals the depth of America’s strategic calculus. Whenever Cairo leans toward non-Western alliances or pursues policies beyond Washington’s approval, accusations of “authoritarianism” or “human rights violations” conveniently resurface in U.S. discourse.

Nigeria: The New Target of a Familiar Game

Against this backdrop, Trump’s comments about genocide in Nigeria fit a recognizable formula. The U.S. identifies or amplifies an internal division—religious, ethnic, or political—then frames it through the lens of morality or persecution. Once public opinion is stirred, the door opens for diplomatic pressure, covert engagement, or economic manipulation.

Nigeria, with its vast oil and gas reserves and growing geopolitical relevance, is a natural target. At a time when Abuja is strengthening ties with China, BRICS nations, and exploring greater self-reliance in defense and energy, narratives that portray Nigeria as unstable or divided conveniently undermine its international credibility.

Of course, Nigeria has suffered grievous losses from terrorism. Thousands of Christians and Muslims alike have been victims of extremist violence. But to label these complex, multi-causal conflicts as a “genocide against Christians” is both misleading and dangerous. It misrepresents Nigeria’s progress against terror, oversimplifies a multifaceted security challenge, and risks inflaming dormant sectarian suspicions—all while serving external agendas.

From Religion to Resources: The True Battleground

From Khartoum to Tripoli, from Cairo to Abuja, the pattern is unmistakable. The language of compassion—human rights, democracy, religion—has often served as cover for intervention. Behind every “moral outrage” lies a map of strategic resources, trade routes, or geopolitical influence.

Africa’s greatest challenge, therefore, is not merely managing its internal diversity but recognizing and resisting the manipulations of foreign powers that thrive on division. The continent must build stronger institutions, independent media, and regional solidarity to see beyond narratives crafted for external consumption.

When world powers speak passionately about freedom or faith in Africa, the question Africans must ask is not what they say, but rather—what they seek.

The post The United States of America’s Playbook of Resource Control appeared first on Daily Dates Nigeria.

Reacting to this statement, an Islamic human rights organization, the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC), observed that Southern Christians have been president and vice president seven times before whereas no Southern Muslim has ever attained that position. MURIC challenged Adebanjo to mention a Yoruba or any Muslim from the South who has been president or vice president of Nigeria.

This was disclosed on Saturday 4th February, 2023 in a statement issued by the director of MURIC, Professor Ishaq Akintola.

The statement reads : “Chief Ayo Adebanjo, leader of Afenifere, on Thursday 2nd February, 2023, said that a Southern Christian may never rule Nigeria again if Obi loses the 2023 presidential election.

“It is clear from Chief Adebanjo’s statement that what he has been clamouring for all along is to enthrone another southern Christian as president. He finds it outrageous for a Southern Muslim, particularly of Yoruba stock, to lead Nigeria.

“Is it not paradoxical that the leader of Afenifere, a Yoruba socio-cultural group, will jettison his avowed ethnicity to clamour for another? It has never happened in the history of the Yoruba that a cultural leader (not a political leader) will don the garb of another tribe.

“The cat has been let out of the bag. Everybody can now see why Adebanjo has been opposing Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a Muslim and a Yoruba, as a presidential candidate. It is not because Adebanjo does not know that Tinubu is a Yoruba. Nay and more than that. It is because he knows that Tinubu is a Muslim.

“The wind has blown. We have seen the ruff of the hen. Adebanjo now says it is because he wants a Christian from the South to become president and if Peter Obi fails in his bid, no Christian from the South may be president again. But Adebanjo is fully aware (and Nigerians also know) that Christians from the South have been president and vice president over and over again whereas no single Southern Muslim has ever been president or vice president. The question Adebanjo must answer is this: Is Southern presidency the exclusive right of Southern Christians?

“Brigadier Babafemi Olatunde Ogundipe was the de facto second in command to General Aguiyi Ironsi (1966), Vice Admiral Joseph Edet Akinwale Wey was the deputy of general Yakubu Gowon (1966 – 1975), Mathew Obasanjo has led Nigeria twice (1975 – 1979 & 1999 – 2007). Earnest Shonekan was interim head of state (26th August to 17th November 1993).

“General Donaldson Oladipo Diya was vice under Abacha (November 1993 to December 1997). Goodluck Jonathan has been president (2010 – 2015). Pastor Oluyemi Oluleke Osinbajo is still the vice president as we speak (2015 to date).

“Above are the names of seven Southern Christians who have ruled Nigeria. By their names, you shall know their creed. We challenge Chief Adebanjo to name just one Southern Muslim that has been president or vice president of Nigeria since independence in 1960. If he cannot find any, what justification has he to insist that another Christian from the South must be president again come 2023.

“Furthermore, we challenge Chief Adebanjo to name one prominent Muslim leader among the leaders of Afenifere. This is one of the reasons we still suspect Chief Adebanjo of hiding under the cloak of Afenifere to carry out an anti-Muslim cleansing operation in the South West.

“Chief Adebanjo is yet to respond to a question raised by MURIC two years ago about the fate of Yoruba Muslims if the Yoruba separatist nation which he has been agitating for becomes a reality. He does not reckon with Yoruba Muslims as deserving the dividends of democracy or eligible for fundamental human rights.

“Adebanjo’s insistence on another Southern Christian at this time is therefore most unfair to Muslims in Southern Nigeria. His comment is deceitful and unjustifiable.

“Nonetheless, we reiterate the fact that our preference for Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu is not necessarily based on his creed. We have picked Tinubu because of his competence, his unequalled political experience and uncommon pedigree. Pre-Tinubu Lagos was a centre of confusion. Tinubu touched Lagos and it became the indubitable centre of excellence. Nigeria needs Tinubu’s midas mien.”

The post Is Presidency the Birthright of Only Southern Christians? appeared first on Daily Dates Nigeria.

That’s objectionable symbolic violence, and it must redressed forthwith in the interest of fairness and justice.

See questions 11, 12, and 14. Even I, a journalism professor who attended government-funded Christian missionary primary and secondary schools, can’t answer questions 11 and 12 because I didn’t take Christian Religious Studies as a student.

Let’s start with question 11. To ask students which earthly institution originated from—and was established by—God is to force a religious belief in them, which is a violation of the Nigerian Constitution. That question is in the province of faith, not fact. None of the options is factually correct.

Or did the examiners expect students to choose—and thereby invite them to believe— the “pastorate” as having originated from and established by God? That’s belief, not fact. You can’t legitimately test students’ belief in a general knowledge exam.

Even “marriage” can’t be correct because it’s a well-established fact in the anthropological literature that marriage didn’t always exist. The first recorded marriage between a man and woman has been periodized to be around 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia. Before then, people just mated without marriage.

There are still societies such as the Mosuo, a Tibetan Buddhist community, where marriage doesn’t exist.

Of course, “schools” and “politics” are decidedly recent human inventions.

So, what response did the examiners at Lagos State want students to pick as the correct answer?

And why is “imamate” not an option if “pastorate” is an option? This is obviously subtle, backhanded Christian proselytization in a secular, general-interest examination, and that’s unacceptable.

Question 12 is an even more blatant instance of noxious religious tyranny. I have not the vaguest clue where Paul was born. Why should a Muslim or non-Christian kid in primary school know that?

To expect a Muslim kid to know the answer to that question is as unfair as expecting a Christian kid to know who the four rightly guided caliphs in (Sunni) Islam are.

The answer to question 14 may seem obvious to people who pay attention to history, but we’re talking of 11- to 12-year-old primary school kids here.

A Muslim kid in Lagos is more likely to know that the Reverend M.S. Cole was the first person to translate the Qur’an into Yoruba in 1906 than that Bishop Ajayi Crowther translated the Bible into Yoruba.

Most importantly, though, those questions don’t belong in a general knowledge exam. No religious faith should be privileged in a secular, general-interest exam.

The Lagos State Ministry of Education must either cancel the exam or compensate students who missed the “correct” answers that braindead, emotionally stunted religious fanatics who set the questions have in mind.

The post Symbolic Violence Against Muslim Pupils By Lagos State Gov’t appeared first on Daily Dates Nigeria.