A United States congressional hearing on global religious freedom has sharply criticised the Federal Government of Nigeria over a reported $9m lobbying contract in Washington, with American lawmakers warning that the deal appears designed to downplay serious allegations of human rights abuses and violations of religious freedom in the country.
The concerns were raised on Wednesday during a joint hearing of the US House Subcommittee on Africa and the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, titled “Defending Religious Freedom Around the World.” The session featured testimony from former US Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Sam Brownback, and former Chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), Dr Stephen Schneck. The hearing was monitored by Saturday PUNCH.
Lawmakers expressed scepticism about Nigeria’s recent engagement of US-based lobbying firms, arguing that the effort undermines the credibility of the Federal Government’s claims that it is adequately addressing violence linked to religion, insecurity, and governance failures. The criticism came against the backdrop of Nigeria’s designation in October 2025 as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) under the US International Religious Freedom Act.
Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Africa Subcommittee, Rep. Chris Smith, defended the CPC designation, describing it as “long overdue” after years of deadly attacks on Christian communities and persistent insecurity in parts of the country. Smith said he was deeply troubled by what he described as attempts to neutralise the impact of the designation through expensive lobbying in Washington.
“I just want to say to my colleagues that I am deeply concerned that Nigeria has hired the lobbying firm, DCI Group, to the tune of $9m, $750,000 a month,” Smith said. “And a Nigerian billionaire has entered into a $120,000-a-month contract with Washington-based consulting firm Valcour to influence Congress and the Executive Branch.”
According to Smith, the firms were being paid to produce polished talking points aimed at persuading US lawmakers that Nigeria’s religious freedom crisis was exaggerated or under control. He argued that such efforts risk obscuring the realities faced by vulnerable communities on the ground.
“They hire these firms; they come up with their very well-written talking points to say nothing to see here,” Smith said, lamenting what he described as the effectiveness of lobbying in reframing serious human rights concerns.
The hearing also examined recent US military actions in Nigeria, including airstrikes carried out by US Africa Command in collaboration with the administration of President Bola Tinubu. The strikes, which took place on December 25, targeted terrorist positions in Sokoto State.
However, several lawmakers and expert witnesses questioned the effectiveness of the strikes and their broader implications. One lawmaker remarked that despite the rhetoric surrounding the protection of Christians in Nigeria, the military intervention had not delivered tangible improvements for affected communities.
“And yet, it is clear that President Trump only cares about Christians in Nigeria, and his only real action to address this problem, military strikes over Christmas, has not even done anything to materially help those communities,” the lawmaker said.
Dr Stephen Schneck echoed this criticism, arguing that the cost of the military action likely exceeded funding previously allocated to interfaith initiatives and humanitarian programmes in Nigeria. He warned that such strikes could prove counterproductive.
“In fact, it occurs to me that the cost of the Tomahawk missiles that were sent probably exceeded the amount of money that had previously been going to Nigeria to improve interfaith relations and provide humanitarian assistance,” Schneck said. “So, it is very concerning to me.”
Schneck further cautioned that military force could inadvertently strengthen militant groups by pushing them into closer cooperation. “To the extent that they have any effect at all, strikes like that would likely drive some of these more militant organisations together in greater unity and perhaps mobilise them in the future. So I think that the strike was a mistake,” he added.
Testifying on Nigeria’s broader crisis, Schneck described the country’s challenges as deeply complex and rooted in multiple, overlapping factors. He cited terrorism by Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), farmer-herder conflicts, banditry, organised crime, and mass displacement. He also criticised what he termed “a corrupt and frankly, a failing government” unable to deliver basic security and justice to its citizens.
The hearing further explored whether Nigeria’s CPC designation was sufficient on its own to compel meaningful change. Rep. Jefferson Shreve questioned the practical impact of the designation, prompting Brownback to argue that the label must be reinforced with concrete measures.
“Until you put some bite into it, most of these dictators are just going to thumb their nose at you,” Brownback said, advocating the use of Magnitsky sanctions and targeted economic penalties against individuals deemed responsible for abuses.
Schneck supported this view, describing CPC listings as largely symbolic without enforcement mechanisms. He characterised them as “name and shame” measures that often fail to produce tangible results in the absence of sanctions or diplomatic consequences.
While Rep. Bill Huizenga suggested that recent US actions had helped refocus international attention on Nigeria, Brownback expressed deep mistrust of the Federal Government. He accused Nigerian authorities of abandoning power-sharing traditions and failing to protect vulnerable communities.
“This government has not given us any reason to trust them,” Brownback said, reflecting the broader scepticism that dominated the hearing and underpinned the sharp rebuke of Nigeria’s multimillion-dollar lobbying effort.
US President Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that Christians in Nigeria are facing genocide and has, in the past, threatened military action over the issue. The Federal Government, however, has consistently rejected those claims, acknowledging serious security challenges but denying that any genocide is taking place.
Despite this disagreement, cooperation between Washington and Abuja has continued in certain areas, including counterterrorism operations. The December airstrikes in Sokoto State were carried out as part of that collaboration.
In January, documents revealed that the Federal Government had entered into a $9m contract with DCI Group to communicate Nigeria’s efforts to protect Christians and address insecurity to the US government. The revelation intensified scrutiny of Abuja’s approach to managing its international image amid mounting domestic challenges.
Not all lawmakers agreed with the framing of the crisis as primarily religious. Ranking Member of the subcommittee, Rep. Sara Jacobs, criticised what she described as an overly narrow focus on Christian persecution. She noted that, despite professed concern about religious violence, the US had cut hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to Nigeria.
Jacobs said the cuts affected programmes supporting faith leaders and conflict-affected communities, including the termination of the Community Initiatives to Promote Peace programme, which she said had contributed to reducing violence in some areas.
“Despite the administration’s apparent interest in addressing conflict and religious tensions in Nigeria, it has cut hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign assistance to Nigeria, including assistance to faith leaders and to communities experiencing violence in the Middle Belt,” Jacobs said.
She cautioned against simplifying Nigeria’s crisis into a single narrative, warning that such an approach could inflame tensions rather than resolve them. “The violence in Nigeria is complex, affecting both Christians and Muslims, and the drivers of this violence are multifaceted and cannot be reduced to a single framing,” she said.
Jacobs added that “oversimplistic narratives can further inflame religious tensions in communities,” underscoring the need for a more nuanced and comprehensive approach to addressing insecurity and protecting religious freedom in Africa’s most populous nation.
The hearing ended with lawmakers signalling that scrutiny of Nigeria’s human rights record, lobbying activities, and security strategy would continue, even as debate persists over the most effective way to promote peace, accountability, and religious freedom in the country.
