Another religious freedom issue, intolerance in Southern Nigeria that United States reports failed to capture exposed – Media Report
By KEMI KASUMU
The report has since been torn to shreds by The Concerned Fulani People of Nigeria, which dismissed the American “mischievous” report as one that smacks of divisive narratives ostensibly orchestrated to destabilise Nigeria and called on Nigerians to reject and condemn such report in its entirety.
A growing debate over religious freedom, political participation, and tolerance has emerged in Enugu State following reports that some community leaders have opposed the political aspirations of Mr. Mathias Ezeaku, a traditional religious worshipper seeking to contest in the 2027 House of Representatives election.
This development is coming amidst a recent United States commission’s report singling out an entire tribe (Fulani) or region (North) of the country as the only enemy the nation has and where Christians are not only deprived their relights to religious freedom but are massacred, allegedly, by Muslim majority. The report has since been torn to shreds by The Concerned Fulani People of Nigeria, which dismissed the American “mischievous” report as one that smacks of divisive narratives ostensibly orchestrated to destabilise Nigeria and called on Nigerians to reject and condemn such report in its entirety.
The case of Ezeaju has further strengthened the position of the Fulani group, which questioned why the US report left out activities of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) along its militant wing Eastern Nigeria Security Network (ESN) that a competent court of jurisdiction in the country has since declared as a Terrorist Organization and therefore outlawed. It asked how come the American body could only see religious freedom deprivation and Christian genocide in Northern Nigeria, a US position that is subjective, but sees nothing of such in the Southern part where many lives have of Nigerians of different religious background have been taken out due to activities of terrorist IPOB and violent Yoruba Nation agitators, if not that the United States system is only interested in creating chaotic situations to find reason to help divide the over 100-year world’s most important black nation against itself.
It will be recalled how IPOB terrorists killed a vital Northern political leader and former Presidential Political Adviser, Alhaji Ahmed Gulak, who was on peace visit to South Eastern Nigeria. This was said to be one terrorist attack too many for Nigeria. Gulak was reportedly a Muslim and member of Northern Nigerian society shot dead by armed gunmen in Owerri, Imo State, on May 30, 2021. The attack took place at Umueze Obiangwu in the Ngor-Okpala Local Government Area, while Gulak was being driven to Sam Mbakwe Airport to catch a flight to Abuja.
The Imo State Police Command reported that the assailants, who were intercepted in a Toyota Sienna, were members of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
Critics have been persistent in their push against the US reports and any American intervention in Nigeria’s quest for peace and searched solution to its insecurity as they believe that a world leader whose partnership dies not have clear cut benefits or respect to the interest of the nation should not be entrusted the confidence of the good people of Nigeria. They are wondering how all of those killings of Muslims and Northerners from Imo to Port Harcourt and Enugu to Ibarapa, Oke Ogun in Oyo State and other parts of Yoruba Land of South West do not find way to the many American situation report if not double standard.
They are particularly sad over the acclaimed inhouse policy of some traditional media, which appears to hold the hand of the victims against the aggressors. One of them being specific wonder how traditional media – broadcasting – in Nigeria were quick and willing in reporting the US report that out Fulani tribe before the world as militants behind the insecurity in Nigeria but denied the Fulani group the right to defend themselves against the allegation. That conspiracy, they said, must it be found with local media if their country of practice and patriotism matter to them.
According to media reports, leaders from the Uzo Uwani Constituency have expressed reservations about Ezeaku’s bid to secure the Nigeria Democratic Congress (NDC) ticket ahead of the forthcoming election. The opposition is reportedly linked not to allegations of criminal conduct or questions about his citizenship, but to his public rejection of Christianity and his advocacy for traditional African religious beliefs.
Reports indicate that Ezeaku, a native of the constituency, has openly identified as a practitioner of traditional African religion. He has also been vocal in criticizing Christianity and Islam, describing both faiths as instruments that have historically misled and subjugated Africans. His public denunciation of Christianity reportedly included the burning of a Bible, an action that generated controversy within the predominantly Christian community.
The development has sparked wider discussions about the extent to which religious beliefs should influence political participation in Nigeria’s democratic system.
Among those weighing in on the issue is human rights advocate and humanist Leo Igwe, who argues that opposition to Ezeaku’s candidacy on religious grounds raises fundamental questions about constitutional rights and democratic inclusion.
Igwe maintains that the Nigerian Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to change one’s religion, reject religious affiliation entirely, or adopt alternative belief systems. He argues that Ezeaku’s decision to renounce Christianity and embrace traditional religion falls within the scope of those constitutional protections.
According to Igwe, disagreement with Ezeaku’s views on Christianity or Islam should not automatically disqualify him from seeking public office or participating fully in the democratic process.
“The right to freedom of religion or belief includes the freedom to reject a religion,” he said, emphasizing that citizens should not face political exclusion because of their religious convictions or lack thereof.
The controversy has also reignited discussions about religious tolerance in Nigeria, a country characterized by significant religious diversity and constitutional secularism. Critics of the opposition to Ezeaku’s candidacy argue that political competition should be determined by competence, policy positions, and public service credentials rather than personal religious beliefs.
Supporters of this position question whether a similar backlash would have occurred if Ezeaku had taken the opposite path—abandoning traditional religion in favor of Christianity. They note that public celebrations often accompany conversions to Christianity in many communities, including instances where converts publicly destroy traditional shrines or religious artifacts as a demonstration of their new faith.
From this perspective, the resistance to Ezeaku’s political ambition reflects what some observers describe as a double standard in attitudes toward religious conversion and expression.
Others, however, contend that public actions such as the burning of sacred religious texts can be deeply offensive to believers and may legitimately influence public perceptions of a candidate’s suitability for elected office, even if such actions remain protected under freedom of expression and belief.
The dispute highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing constitutional freedoms with community sensitivities in a deeply religious society.
As preparations for the 2027 elections gather momentum, the debate surrounding Ezeaku’s candidacy is likely to continue raising broader questions about the role of religion in Nigerian politics, the limits of religious tolerance, and the extent to which personal beliefs should affect a citizen’s ability to seek public office.
Nigeria operates under a constitutional democracy that guarantees freedom of religion and prohibits the establishment of a state religion. The controversy in Uzo Uwani has therefore become a focal point for discussions about whether democratic participation should remain separate from religious affiliation and whether candidates should be judged primarily on their political qualifications rather than their faith commitments.
Leo Igwe, who holds a doctorate in Religious Studies from the University of Bayreuth, Germany, serves on the board of Humanists International and directs the Advocacy for Alleged Witches and Critical Thinking Social Empowerment Foundation.
This version adopts a more neutral, journalistic tone while preserving the key arguments, context, and perspectives contained in the original text.
