THE Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Hassan Kukah, has rejected widespread characterisations of his recent statements as a denial of Christian persecution in Nigeria.
In a December 8, 2025 statement titled “Of the Persecution of Christians in Nigeria: My Response,” Kukah described such attributions as false, insisting that what he actually emphasised was unity, solidarity, and accurate data over emotional rhetoric.
He explained that during his address at the 46th Supreme Convention of the Knights of St. Mulumba in Kaduna on November 28, 2025, he spoke about the challenges Christians face amid insecurity but did not deny the existence of persecution. Rather, he called on Christians to stand together and urged a more discerning use of terms like “genocide” and “martyrdom,” saying these should not be used lightly or without evidence.
The controversy erupted after media reports quoted Kukah as questioning the narrative of widespread Christian persecution, citing statistics such as “80% of educated Nigerians are Christians” and “85% of the Nigerian economy is controlled by Christians” arguments critics said undermined the reality of faith-based violence.
In response, his team at the The Kukah Centre (TKC) issued a formal rebuttal, charging that several outlets had misrepresented the remarks. TKC emphasised that in his speeches including one delivered at the 2025 global gathering on religious freedom in the Vatican Kukah explicitly condemned ongoing killings, forced displacement, and the state’s inability to protect victims describing such conditions as “the genesis of genocide” in some communities.
According to the Centre, Kukah’s key argument is not denial of persecution, but a call for measured discourse and accountability: attacks on Christians, as on any group, deserve justice yet inflammatory labels without verified evidence can worsen tensions and distract from real solutions.
The clarification has triggered a wave of reactions across religious communities and civil society:
Some faithful and rights-advocates accused the bishop of “turning his back” on persecuted Christians, arguing that even raising questions can be seen as undermining empathy for victims.
Others expressed relief, saying the clarification restores moral clarity that calling for justice and unity does not mean denying suffering.
The controversy has reignited a broader debate on how to define and address violence affecting Nigerian Christians: Is it purely sectarian? Ethnic? Criminal? And when is it “persecution,” or “genocide”?
Meanwhile, security analysts and some government spokespeople argue that the violence affecting Christians and Muslims alike in many parts of the country stems from complex factors banditry, herder-farmer conflicts, insurgency and should not be framed solely in religious terms.
Kukah’s clarification and the ensuing debate highlight deep tensions in Nigeria’s conversation about security, identity, and the role of religious communities.
For religious leaders and communities, it underscores the challenge of balancing advocacy for victims while avoiding polarisation.
For policymakers and security agencies, it raises questions about whether framing violence as “religious persecution” helps or hinders peace efforts.
