As violence continues to scar communities and strain Africa’s largest economy, Nigeria is facing sharp criticism in Washington over a reported $9 million lobbying contract that U.S. lawmakers say may be aimed at softening global scrutiny of the country’s human rights and religious freedom record.
The rebuke comes at a time when persistent killings, kidnappings and mass displacement — particularly in northern Nigeria — have not only deepened a national security crisis but also eroded public confidence in the government’s constitutional duty to protect lives and property.
Congressional Alarm
The concerns surfaced Wednesday during a joint hearing of the House Subcommittee on Africa and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, titled “Defending Religious Freedom Around the World.”
Former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and former chair of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Dr Stephen Schneck, testified before lawmakers in a session closely watched by policy observers.
Representative Chris Smith, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, defended the October 2025 designation of Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the International Religious Freedom Act, calling the move “long overdue” after years of deadly attacks on Christian communities.
He warned that Nigeria’s lobbying effort risks appearing like an attempt to dilute that designation.
“I am deeply concerned that Nigeria has hired the lobbying firm, DCI Group, to the tune of $9 million — $750,000 a month,” Smith said. “These firms produce well-crafted talking points suggesting there’s nothing to see.”
Smith also referenced a separate $120,000-per-month consulting contract reportedly funded by a Nigerian billionaire to influence Congress and the Executive Branch.
Security Crisis With Economic Consequences
Analysts say the controversy underscores a broader dilemma: insecurity has increasingly become an economic emergency.
From abandoned farmlands to disrupted supply chains and shrinking investor confidence, violence has imposed heavy costs on growth while worsening food inflation and unemployment. Businesses in high-risk regions face rising security expenses, and some multinational firms have scaled back operations amid uncertainty.
For millions of Nigerians, the result is a daily reality shaped by fear — and growing frustration with leadership.
Critics argue that deploying millions toward reputation management abroad risks reinforcing perceptions that the government is prioritising optics over urgent domestic reforms.
A More Complex Conflict?
Yet not all lawmakers agreed on the framing of Nigeria’s crisis.
Ranking Member Sara Jacobs cautioned against reducing the violence solely to religious persecution, noting that both Christians and Muslims have suffered.
“The violence in Nigeria is multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single narrative,” Jacobs said, warning that oversimplified interpretations could inflame tensions rather than resolve them.
Jacobs also criticised the U.S. government’s decision to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in aid programs supporting faith leaders and conflict-affected communities, including the Community Initiatives to Promote Peace program, which she said had helped lower violence in certain regions.
Questions Over Military Strategy
Schneck echoed concerns about recent U.S. military strikes in Sokoto State, arguing they have not meaningfully improved security for vulnerable populations.
He suggested the cost of the missile operations may have exceeded prior investments in humanitarian and interfaith initiatives.
“Strikes like that may actually drive militant organisations closer together,” Schneck warned, describing the move as a strategic mistake.
A Web of Threats
Testifying on Nigeria’s broader security landscape, Schneck outlined a convergence of threats: Boko Haram and ISWAP insurgencies, farmer-herder clashes, banditry, organised crime, and mass displacement, compounded by what he described as weak governance and corruption.
The cumulative effect, experts say, is not just territorial instability but a gradual weakening of the social contract between citizens and the state.
When governments struggle to guarantee safety, constitutional legitimacy itself can come into question.
Will the CPC Label Matter?
Lawmakers also debated whether the CPC designation alone would drive change.
Brownback argued that without tangible consequences — including potential sanctions — the label risks becoming symbolic.
“Until you put some bite into it, most of these dictators are just going to thumb their nose at you,” he said, urging targeted penalties under the Magnitsky Act.
While some officials believe recent U.S. actions have amplified global attention on Nigeria’s crisis, Brownback expressed scepticism about Abuja’s willingness — or capacity — to protect vulnerable populations.
Image vs. Reality
For Nigeria, the diplomatic backlash highlights a delicate balancing act: defending its international reputation while confronting a security emergency that many citizens see as existential.
At stake is more than foreign perception. The deeper question is whether a nation battling widespread violence can afford to invest heavily in influence campaigns while communities continue to mourn victims and economic prospects dim.
Until security improves, critics warn, no amount of lobbying may be enough to repair the widening gap between Nigeria’s global image and the realities faced by its people.
