Nigeria

The right to religious freedom 

continues to be under threat in 

Nigeria. Moreover, the response 

of the Nigerian government to 

the country’s religious freedom problems 

remains inadequate and ineffectual. These 

problems include an ongoing series of communal conflicts along religious lines that 

have claimed the lives of thousands in the 

last five years; the controversy over the 

expansion of sharia (Islamic law) into the 

criminal codes of several northern Nigerian 

states; and the persistent reports of official 

discrimination against Christians or Muslims in areas of Nigeria where either group 

is in the minority. Furthermore, there are 

increasing reports of foreign sources of 

funding and support for Islamic extremist 

activities in northern Nigeria, activities that 

threaten to fracture already fragile relations 

between the two main religious groups. 

The U.S. Commission on International 

Religious Freedom continues to place Nigeria on its Watch List because of the nature 

and extent of violations of religious freedom 

engaged in or tolerated by the Nigerian government. The Commission will continue to 

monitor the actions of the Nigerian government to determine if the situation rises to 

a level warranting designation as a “country of particular concern,” or CPC, under 

the International Religious Freedom Act of 

1998. Commission staff traveled to Nigeria 

in the past year. 

The United States is Nigeria’s largest 

trading partner after the United Kingdom, 

and receives approximately seven percent of 

its foreign crude oil from Nigeria. Overall 

U.S. policy toward Nigeria focuses on supporting regional stability and peacekeeping 

efforts in West Africa, supporting Nigeria’s 

transition to democracy, combating the 

HIV/AIDS pandemic, and advancing good 

governance, economic reform, and health 

and education. 

Yet, central to achieving these policy 

goals is the ability of the Nigerian government and people to deal peacefully with 

religious conflict and its underlying causes. 

Nigeria’s roughly 133 million inhabitants 

comprise more than 250 ethnic groups 

speaking more than 500 languages. While 

there are no accurate counts, there are estimates that some 50 percent of Nigerians 

are Sunni Muslims, and approximately 

40 percent are Christians, predominantly 

Catholics, but also Protestants. Muslims 

make up about 90-95 percent of the population of the northernmost states. Christians 

are heavily concentrated in the southeast, 

where they comprise about 90-95 percent 

of the local population. In the southwest, 

Muslims and Christians are more or less 

evenly split. The popular movement in several northern Nigerian states to expand the 

legal application of sharia to criminal matters has sparked communal violence and is 

a source of continuing volatility and tension 

between Muslims and Christians at both 

the national and local levels. Serious outbreaks of Muslim-Christian violence in the 

last few years threaten to divide further the 

populace along religious lines and undermine the foundations of religious freedom 

in Nigeria. 

The U.S. government, however, has 

not adequately engaged Nigeria in confronting these religious freedom concerns, 

including the issue of increasing Islamic extremism. Freedom of thought, conscience, 

and religion is guaranteed in the Nigerian 

Constitution, including the right to change 

one’s religion and to practice, propagate, 

and worship. The U.S. government can and 

should do more to encourage the Nigerian 

government to take steps to deal effectively 

with religious tension and conflict, and to 

support efforts of Nigerians, both inside 

and outside the government, to do so. The 

Commission makes several policy recommendations to this end.

Communal and Sectarian Violence

Since President Olusegun Obasanjo 

came to power through popular elections 

in 1999, ending 40 years of military dictatorship, an estimated 10,000 Nigerians have 

been killed in sectarian and communal attacks and reprisals between Muslims and 

Christians. The most serious of the clashes 

occurred in Kaduna state (February & May 

2000); Jos, Plateau state (September 2001); 

Kaduna (November 2002); and most recently in Kano state and Yelwa, Plateau 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

800 North Capitol Street, NW Suite 790

Washington, DC 20002

AUGUST 200 4

P O L I C Y 

F O C U S

CONTINUED ON PAGE 2

Over the past year, the 

Commission and its staff have 

continued to direct attention 

to Nigeria. In July 2003, the 

Commission wrote to President 

Bush urging him to raise with 

Nigerian President Obasanjo 

the need to take action to end 

Muslim-Christian violence and 

recommended that President 

Bush urge President Obasanjo 

to take various actions to protect 

religious freedom in Nigeria. A 

Commission staff delegation 

undertook a mission to Nigeria 

in August 2003 and met with 

numerous Nigerian government 

officials, religious leaders, and 

representatives of human rights 

and other non-governmental 

organizations. In September 

2003, the Commission issued 

a statement welcoming the acquittal on appeal of a woman 

sentenced to death by stoning 

under the sharia criminal code 

in Katsina state while also expressing concern about ill-treatment of the accused, lack of due 

process, and trial procedures that 

violated international norms. 

In May 2004, the Commission 

issued a statement condemning 

sectarian violence in Plateau 

and Kano states that claimed 

hundreds of lives.
USCIRF state (February-May 2004). Dozens of other 

towns and villages in the Middle Belt and 

northern Nigeria have also been affected.1

Hundreds of churches and mosques have 

been burned and destroyed in the violence.

During the Commission staff’s visit 

to Nigeria in August 2003, several interlocutors representing a wide cross section 

of Nigerian society suggested that most of 

the communal and sectarian violence is aggravated by political corruption, the failure 

of the justice system, an ineffective police 

force at all levels, and lack of transparency 

in the use of annual revenues from oil and 

gas. These factors have led subsequently to a 

rule of law crisis in which political actions 

are often dictated by self-interest rather 

than adherence to the law. They have also 

contributed to the politicization of ethnic 

and religious divisions, which are the faultlines along which violence erupts. Many 

claimed that Nigerian elites over the years 

have manipulated ethnic and religious tensions for political gain; several Muslim and 

Christian religious leaders confirmed to 

Commission staff that religion is used as a 

vehicle by the elite to gain political power. 

For example, sometimes churches and 

mosques are targeted not because of religious differences per se but to get attention 

and exacerbate highly volatile ethnic conflicts.2

 The key participants in the sectarian and communal violence are often large 

numbers of unemployed and disillusioned 

youth from both religious communities, 

particularly in urban areas. 

The state and local government response to violence generally has been inadequate and has, in some cases, exacerbated 

communal tensions. President Obasanjo has 

primarily played a mediating role, stressing 

political negotiations rather than ordering 

the government to intervene to protect the 

lives of Nigerian citizens and more effectively using his position to prevent violence 

and punish those responsible. While many 

Christians and Muslims have been identified as perpetrators of violence over the 

years, very few, if any, have been prosecuted. 

Moreover, the Nigerian federal police and 

military have been accused of using excessive force, including extrajudicial killings, 

to curb the violence.3

The Sharia Controversy 

Of particular concern is that the extension of sharia to several areas of Nigeria 

has resulted in the violation of international 

human rights standards with regard to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 

or belief. A system of sharia courts adjudicating the personal status of Muslims (e.g., 

marriage, divorce, and inheritance) has 

existed in some parts of northern Nigeria 

since before independence in 1960. Since 

the return to democracy and civilian rule in 

1999, twelve northern Nigerian states began 

to extend or announced plans to expand the 

application of sharia.4 Although the particulars vary from state to state, each has 

adopted, or plans to adopt, a sharia-based 

penal code and provisions to extend the jurisdiction of sharia courts beyond personal 

status matters to include sharia regulations 

on social behaviors, punishments, and trial 

procedures that critically undercut basic 

internationally-guaranteed freedoms, including freedom of religion or belief and 

freedom of expression.

Sharia punishments in Nigeria include 

amputation, flogging, or death by stoning, 

oftentimes after trials that fall short of basic 

international legal standards of due process. 

Women’s equal right to due process is particularly affected, as well as fairness under 

the law. No stoning punishments have been 

carried out to date; however, sentences involving amputation and flogging have been 

employed in recent years. 

Although sharia court jurisdiction 

exists over Muslims only, women and the 

very poorest persons, as well as non-Muslims, are impacted adversely by application 

of sharia-based criminal and behavioral 

codes.5 Many of the sharia codes apply to all 

Muslims, regardless of individual choices or 

beliefs. Defendants in these cases often have 

limited rights of appeal and sometimes no 

legal representation. 

Some states have instituted or tolerated, as a result of these imposed codes, 

discriminatory practices disadvantaging 

women in education, health care, and public transportation. A 2003 ruling in Kano 

state in northern Nigeria imposes the wearing of headscarves on all schoolgirls, both 

Muslims and non-Muslims.6 According to 

Muslim women’s rights groups in Nigeria, 

Muslim women are very careful in expressing their views about implementation of 

sharia for fear that they might be criticized 

as anti-Islamic by male religious leaders. 

Several of these groups assert that Muslim 

women already experienced significant 

discrimination regarding divorce and inheritance matters under the pre-existing 

PREETA D. BANSAL, CHAIR

Of Counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, 

Meagher & Flom

FELICE D. GAER, VICE CHAIR

Director, Jacob Blaustein Institute for 

the Advancement of Human Rights, The 

American Jewish Committee 

NINA SHEA, VICE CHAIR

Director of the Center for Religious Freedom, 

Freedom House

PATTI CHANG, COMMISSIONER

President and CEO, 

Women’s Foundation of California

ARCHBISHOP CHARLES J. CHAPUT, 

COMMISSIONER

Archbishop of Denver

KHALED ABOU EL FADL, 

COMMISSIONER

Professor of Law at UCLA

RICHARD D. LAND, COMMISSIONER 

President and CEO of the Ethics and 

Religious Liberty Commission of the 

Southern Baptist Convention

BISHOP RICARDO RAMIREZ, 

COMMISSIONER

Bishop of the Diocese of Las Cruces, 

New Mexico

MICHAEL K. YOUNG, 

COMMISSIONER

President, The University Of Utah

JOHN V. HANFORD III, 

EX-OFFICIO, 

NON-VOTING COMMISSIONER

Ambassador-at-Large for International 

Religious Freedom, U.S. Department of State

JOSEPH R. CRAPA, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

P O L I C Y F O C U S

visit our web site at 

www.uscirf.gov

COMMISSIONERS

2
N I G E R I A

AMINA LAWAL WAS SPARED DEATH BY 

STONING IN SEPTEMBER 2003 BY A SHARIA 

APPEALS COURT Frederic Noy/AFP/Getty Images

USCIRF

sharia-based personal status laws. The 

application of the sharia penal codes, including discriminatory evidentiary rules,7

compounds that pre-existing discrimination, although the situation in practice varies from state to state.

Two women recently facing death by 

stoning sentences for alleged adultery were 

acquitted on appeal, following intense 

international pressure and media coverage. The first woman in Sokoto state won 

her appeal in March 2002. After the other 

woman’s initial appeal was denied in August 2002, a higher Islamic appeals court 

in Katsina state acquitted her in September 

2003. Other cases are pending appeal after 

sharia courts have handed down sentences 

of death by stoning for various offenses. 

The very poorest persons in Nigeria are 

also vulnerable. The poor are more frequently targeted by officials or the quasi-official 

religious police (Hisbah) for sharia violations and are more likely to receive harsher 

sentences as a result. As they have no funds 

for a lawyer, they are especially defenseless 

against due process abuses. Because of the 

corruption in Nigeria, wealthier persons are 

more likely to be able to bribe their way out 

of convictions of sharia violations.

The application of sharia and its impact 

on non-Muslims, especially Christians, varies from state to state. For example, Kaduna 

state is considered to have the most modified 

approach toward the application of sharia 

and has not, to date, imposed corporal punishment in any criminal sharia cases. There 

are no Hisbah groups in Kaduna or Bauchi 

states, but there are active Hisbah groups in 

Kano, Zamfara, and Katsina states. 

Calls for violence against non-Muslims has sometimes accompanied sharia 

implementation. In April 2004, press reports quoted the governor of Zamfara state, 

in northwestern Nigeria, as saying that he 

intends to implement the second phase of 

his plan to institute sharia by ordering the 

destruction of all Christian churches and 

non-Islamic places of worship, in accordance with what he believes is his “duty to 

subjugate infidels.”8 In November 2002, the 

Deputy Governor of Zamfara state publicly 

endorsed a fatwa calling on all Muslims to 

seek the death of the journalist responsible 

for a newspaper article that some Muslims 

declared to be blasphemous. However, in 

this instance, a spokesman for the Nigerian 

federal government said that the Deputy 

Governor’s judgment was “null and void” 

and would not be carried out because it 

contravened the rule of law in Nigeria.

The question of whether the new sharia-based criminal laws violate the Nigerian 

Constitution is a contentious and sensitive 

one. The current Constitution prohibits 

state and local governments from adopting an “official religion,” but authorizes 

state sharia courts and confers on them 

jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal law. The 

Constitution also permits state sharia appellate courts with “such other jurisdiction 

as may be conferred upon it by the law of 

the State.”9 At the same time, the Nigerian 

Constitution calls for due process of law 

and equality between men and women before the law, both of which principles are 

often not upheld in states where sharia has 

been implemented. To date, however, the 

constitutionality of sharia has not been presented before Nigeria’s Supreme Court and 

the national government has so far failed to 

challenge state laws or other practices that 

violate Nigeria’s Constitution. 

Nigerian government officials informed the Commission staff delegation that 

President Olusegun Obasanjo prefers not to 

contend with the sharia issue directly during 

his presidency. In January 2004, in response 

to a public question at the World Economic 

Forum in Davos, Switzerland about how he 

would ease tensions in Nigeria, President 

Obasanjo responded, “you shouldn’t worry 

about sharia...it will fizzle out. It has fizzled out.”10 However, others argue that “the 

[sharia] movement remains a potent force in 

Nigerian politics and society, unsettling relations between Muslims and Christians and 

increasing tension between the north and 

south of the country.”11

Discrimination Against 

Religious Minorities

Nigeria is plagued by other serious 

problems regarding freedom of religion or 

belief, many of which predate the recent 

initiatives regarding sharia. According to 

Christian interlocutors on the staff visit to 

Nigeria, Christians, in areas where they are 

in the minority and where sharia has been 

instituted, have experienced discrimination in: (1) the education system; (2) land 

use; (3) the building of churches; (4) the 

lack of access to religious broadcasting; 

and (5) government employment at the 

state and local level. Several Christians 

contend that these problems have intensified as a result of the movement to expand 

sharia in the north. Moreover, several 

northern states continue to ban some public religious activities, citing public order 

concerns, although such activities are permitted by the Nigerian Constitution and 

are in accord with international human 

rights norms. 

According to Muslim interlocutors, 

Muslim communities experience similar 

forms of discrimination in several of the 

predominantly Christian southern states. 

Areas of discrimination against Muslims 

include lack of access to religious broadcasting, restrictions on building mosques, and 

limited representation in government institutions. Although other factors contribute 

to this official and societal discrimination, including ethnic loyalties, widespread 

government corruption at all levels, rising 

poverty, and a failing education system, religious affiliation is still one of the primary 

identities on which discriminatory practices are based.

Religious Extremism

Some experts on Nigeria and Africa 

have argued that a small, vocal group of 

northern Nigerian Muslims who advocate 

strict application of sharia are helping create 

a haven for radical Islamist militants from 

outside Nigeria.12 These experts suggest that 

3

CONTINUED ON PAGE4
conditions in northern Nigeria may potentially create a fertile ground for international terrorist networks from the Middle East 

and North Africa. A significant increase in 

anti-American sentiment has also become 

pervasive in northern Nigeria since the September 11 attacks.

During its visit to Nigeria, Commission staff were told by numerous interlocutors that financial support from Libya, 

Saudi Arabia, and Sudan has been the most 

visible in helping build mosques and Islamic religious schools in northern Nigeria. 

Some have suggested that the kind of Islam 

being preached in these mosques and religious schools is not a form of Islam that is 

traditional to Nigeria. Others have said that 

an increasing number of Nigerian Islamic 

scholars and clerics are being trained in 

Saudi Arabia and have brought back with 

them a kind of religious ideology that explicitly promotes hatred of, and violence 

against, non-Muslims. 

According to the May 11, 2004 New York 

Times, military chiefs from nine African nations were brought to European Command 

headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany in April 

to discuss similar concerns about religious 

extremism. All the representatives at the 

meeting expressed anxiety about the growing threat of Islamic militancy within their 

borders. “Government officials in Burkina 

Faso have complained to American officials 

about ‘bearded ones’ showing up in remote 

areas preaching the Salafist, or fundamentalist, strain of Islam that inspires Islamic militants. The foreign imams distribute cassette 

tapes and have greater wealth than the local 

imams with whom they are competing.” According to a State Department official, “these 

are people from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, 

who are essentially Islamic missionaries 

preaching a form of Islam that is very, very 

Some have suggested that the kind of Islam being preached in these mosques and religious 

schools is not a form of Islam that is traditional to Nigeria.

1 Human Rights Watch, “The Miss World Riots,” July 2003 

(http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/nigeria0703, accessed May 

21, 2004).

2 There is a serious and ongoing ethnic and tribal problem between 

“settlers” – those who move from one area of the country to 

live in another area – and “indigenes” – those who trace there 

ancestral origins to the area in which they live. The problem 

stems from the fact that indigenes receive more benefits from the 

state than settlers.

 3 Human Rights Watch, “Nigeria: No Justice for the Kaduna 

Killings,” July 22, 2003 (http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/07/

nigeria072203.htm, accessed May 21, 2004).

4 Twelve northern states have adopted or plan to adopt variations 

of sharia: Zamfara, Sokoto, Kebbi, Niger, Kano, Katsina, Kaduna, 

Jigawa, Yobe, Bauchi, Borno, and Gombe.

5 These codes generally ban the sale and distribution of alcohol 

and gambling for all Nigerians, regardless of religious affiliation. 

Christians who drink alcohol publicly in most northern states face 

harassment, a situation which existed even before the formal 

implementation of sharia in the criminal codes in 1999. 

6 Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), Office for the 

Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, United Nations, “Nigeria: 

Kano State Directs All School Girls to Wear Muslim Scarves,” 

September 1, 2003 (http://www.irinnews.org, accessed May 27, 

2004).

7 This refers to the official interpretation of sharia which provides 

that in some circumstances, testimony by a man is said to be 

equivalent to the testimony of two women.

8 P. M. News, “Zamfara Gov. Orders the Demolition of 

All Churches,” April 29, 2004 (http://allafrica.com/

stories/200404290789.html, accessed May 25, 2004).

9 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Article 277.

10 David McHugh, The Associated Press, “Business Officials 

Debate Ethics and Stock Market Pressure at World Economic 

Forum,” January 22, 2004.

11 Princeton N. Lyman and J. Stephen Morrison, “The Terrorist 

Threat in Africa,” Foreign Affairs, January-February 2004, 79.

12 See Lyman and Morrison, “The Terrorist Threat in Africa,” and 

Paul Marshall, “The Next Hotbed of Islamic Radicalism,” The 

Washington Post, October 8, 2002, A25.

13 IRIN, “Nigeria: Sudanese Arrested, Accused of Funding 

December Islamic Uprising,” January 25, 2004 (http://www.

irinnews.org, accessed, May 21, 2004.)

14 Lyman and Morrison, 75-76.

TO CONTACT THE COMMISSION:

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

800 North Capitol St., NW, Suite 790

Washington, DC 20002

Web site: www.uscirf.gov

E-mail: communications@uscirf.gov

Voice: 202-523-3240 

Fax: 202-523-5020

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 3

4

In August 2003, USCIRF staff met with Jerry Gana, 

Special Advisor for Political Affairs to President Obasanjo USCIRF Communications Office photo

different from what these countries want or 

grew up with.”

Though not organized as a nationwide 

movement, some groups in Nigeria advocate 

a more forcible Islamization of all society, 

regardless of religious affiliation. Commission staff met with several religious groups 

in Kano and Kaduna states whose members 

advocate intolerant views towards nonMuslims and seek application of sharia for 

all Nigerians, not just Muslims. There have 

been a few similar pronouncements from 

local officials in several Nigerian states, 

though such statements have not as yet been 

put into action.

In late 2003 and early 2004, a spate of 

extremist activities resulted in at least 18 

deaths in Yobe state in northeastern Nigeria. In late December, a militant group that 

seeks to establish a strict Islamic state in Nigeria attacked police stations in two small 

towns in Yobe State. The group of about 

200 young militants killed two policemen 

and seized guns and ammunition. Police 

subsequently killed several militants. A UN 

press report stated that a Sudanese man was 

arrested for spearheading the insurrection 

and that the Islamic foundation he headed, 

which builds new mosques in Nigeria, was 

funded by Saudi nationals. The man who 

heads the militant group reportedly fled to 

Saudi Arabia.13

A former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria 

has stated that, “in Nigeria...a potent mix 

of communal tensions, radical Islamism, 

and anti-Americanism has produced a 

fertile breeding ground for militancy and 

threatens to tear the country apart.”14

Whether or not the threat is imminent, 

the situation is serious and warrants 

immediate and continued attention by the 

Nigerian government.

USCIRF
Over the last five years, the U.S. government has focused its policy on supporting 

Nigeria’s nascent democracy and further developing an economic partnership. 

However, the United States has not been actively engaged in urging the Nigerian government adequately to protect freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief for all Nigerians and to address directly the sharia controversy and increasing 

religious extremism in the northern part of the country. Furthermore, the U.S. mission to 

Nigeria has suffered substantial financial cutbacks over the past few years, including its foreign assistance programs, which have significantly affected the level of staffing of the U.S. 

Embassy in Abuja and the Consulate in Lagos. The U.S. official presence in northern Nigeria 

is essentially non-existent and support, through U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) programs, for conflict prevention efforts and human rights assistance in the Middle 

Belt and northern Nigeria is inadequate.

Embassy staff in Abuja, former U.S. government officials, and Nigeria experts confirm 

that the United States needs to increase its official presence in the north as soon as possible. 

The U.S. Information Agency was present in Kano until 1993 and there was a consulate in 

Kaduna until 1999. USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives also had a presence in the north 

until January 2002, when it ceased operating in Nigeria. Lack of an official presence in the 

north decreases U.S. understanding and knowledge of local sentiment and makes more difficult public diplomacy efforts to counter anti-U.S. sentiment, which has been even more 

pervasive in the past few years. 

To promote the protection of religious freedom in Nigeria, the Commission makes the 

following recommendations.

I. URGE THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT TO ADDRESS THE SHARIA CONTROVERSY, 

OPPOSE RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM, AND HOLD ACCOUNTABLE PERPETRATORS OF 

RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

• The U.S. government should publicly urge the Nigerian government (a) to ensure that sharia criminal codes do not apply to non-Muslims or to individual Muslims who do not wish 

to go before sharia courts, and (b) to prevent law enforcement activities in northern states 

by any quasi-official or private corps of sharia enforcers. 

• The U.S. government should publicly and privately urge the Nigerian government to ensure 

that, if implemented, sharia codes do not in practice result in violations of international 

human rights standards with regard to freedom of religion or belief, due process of law, and 

freedom of expression.

• The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to address and rectify the ways 

in which the implementation of sharia in several Nigerian states has resulted in highly discriminatory practices against women and the violation of the internationally guaranteed 

right of women in Nigeria to equal treatment before the law.

• The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to identify, publicize, and 

counter foreign sources of religious extremism as part of its counter-terrorism efforts. To 

assist in this effort, the U.S. government should include Nigeria in its Pan-Sahel initiative, 

a U.S. military training partnership with four Saharan African nations fostering anti-terrorist and anti-extremist cooperation among countries of North and West Africa.

• The U.S. government should urge the Nigerian government to take effective steps to prevent and contain acts of sectarian and communal violence, prevent reprisal attacks, and 

bring those responsible for such violence to justice. The State Department should address 

specifically in its human rights reporting the Nigerian government’s efforts in this regard.

• The U.S. government should insist to the Nigerian government that any official support 

for the so-called “religious police,” or Hisbah, be halted immediately and that state governments make greater efforts to combat the activities of these vigilante groups.

CONTINUED 

Commission 

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S 

For U.S. Policy
RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED 

II. EXPAND U.S. PRESENCE AND OUTREACH EFFORTS, 

PRIMARILY IN NORTHERN NIGERIA

 Specifically, the U.S. government should:

• open a consulate or other official presence in Kano, or elsewhere in the north, which should 

include representation from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

• provide adequate Embassy and Consulate staff with appropriate local language skills, and require political and public affairs officers to regularly travel throughout Nigeria, particularly 

in the north, to discuss communal conflict, religious extremism, human rights, and related 

concerns with local and state government officials, religious and other civil society leaders, 

and non-governmental organizations, women’s rights groups, and others.

• increase the capacity of the Hausa Service of the Voice of America to report on communal 

conflict and human rights, including religious freedom, and continue to monitor such reporting to ensure that it is fair, balanced, and expresses the views of all Nigerians.

• expand in northern Nigeria the American Corners program, a public diplomacy outpost that 

makes available Internet access, a library, a small reference collection, and other facilities 

to the public. The American Corners centers should contain information on human rights, 

including religious freedom. 

• support the dissemination of information in relevant local languages on the human rights of 

every Nigerian under the Nigerian Constitution and international legal instruments to which 

Nigeria is a party, including the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. 

The U.S. embassy website should be used as one vehicle to disseminate such information.

• sponsor several exchange programs each year on the topics of freedom of religion or belief, 

religious tolerance, and Islamic law and human rights, targeting religious leaders, human 

rights advocates, government officials, and northern Nigerians.

• encourage a local university in the north to set up an American studies program that would 

include issues of ethnic and religious diversity.

III. EXPAND U.S. SUPPORT FOR COMMUNAL CONFLICT PREVENTION AND MITIGATION

 The U.S. government should, through its foreign assistance programs or otherwise, identify 

and support:

• Nigerian non-governmental organizations working on communal conflict prevention and 

mitigation with an emphasis on:

– capacity building for local groups in northern Nigeria and the Middle Belt, where the most 

serious religious violence has occurred;

– programs that encourage participation by religious organizations, religious leaders, and 

women in addressing conflict, including organizations representing Muslims, Christians, and 

adherents of traditional African religions;

– implementing positive national efforts at the regional and local levels; and

– connecting Nigerian groups to the expertise of individuals and organizations in other African 

countries addressing similar issues.

• human rights defenders, including legal aid groups that defend the constitutional and internationally-recognized rights of individuals, especially women, impacted by sharia-based 

criminal codes.

• human rights defenders responding to credible allegations of religious discrimination in any 

part of Nigeria.

• earmarking and increasing funds for the expansion of training for the Nigerian federal police 

in human rights protection.

• developing programs and supporting institutions, particularly in regions that have experienced sectarian and communal violence, that promote objective, unbiased, and non-inflammatory reporting, consistent with Nigeria’s obligations to protect the right of freedom of 

expression. Such programs should include encouraging links between journalists and conflict resolution organizations in Nigeria. 

• encouraging the Nigerian government to expand the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council, formed 

by the Nigerian government in 1999 to promote dialogue between Christians and Muslims, 

and to develop state and local councils to address the same issues.