According to a New York Times investigation, the US used information from driver traders and small NGO operators in Onitsha, Anambra State to carry out airstrikes in Nigeria.
The report identifies Emeka Ume-Agbarasi as a key source cited by U.S. lawmakers for unverified claims about Christian genocide in Nigeria.
The revelations raised concerns about the accuracy of the information that shaped American military action and the broader narrative surrounding religious violence in Nigeria.
Umeagbarasi claimed to have documented the deaths of 125,000 Christians in Nigeria since 2009, using Google searches, Nigerian media reports, secondary sources, and advocacy groups such as Open Doors, according to the New York Times.
what they are saying
The New York Times report brought global attention to Emeka Umeagbarasi, an Onitsha trader who also runs a small NGO. His data has been cited by prominent US politicians to support claims that Christians are being systematically targeted in Nigeria.
“This man, Emeka Umeagbarasi, runs a small shop selling screwdrivers and wrenches in this market in Onitsha, the commercial capital of southeastern Nigeria. … “But the screwdriver salesman is also an unlikely source of research used by American Republicans to promote the misleading idea that Christians are being singled out for genocide in Africa’s most populous country,” the New York Times reported. Using data from Google searches, Nigerian media reports, and advocacy groups such as Open Doors, 125,000 Christians have died since 2009. He admitted that he rarely verifies data and makes assumptions about the religion of victims based on their geographic location: “When mass kidnappings and killings occur in areas where there are believed to be many Christians, he assumes the victims are Christian.” He also claimed that 20,000 people out of Nigeria’s population of 100,000 died. Churches have been vandalized in the past 16 years, he said, a figure he found by “Google it.”
The New York Times noted that his report has been cited by U.S. lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Riley Moore, and Rep. Chris Smith, and even by former President Donald Trump to justify military action in Nigeria.
back story
The US airstrikes come amid an escalating series of actions related to allegations of persecution of Christians in Nigeria.
In October, former President Donald Trump redesignated Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” over alleged mass killings of Christians. Trump warned in November that the U.S. military would intervene with “gunfire” if Nigeria did not take action against so-called genocide. On December 26, the US military conducted airstrikes on alleged ISIS targets in Sokoto state “at the request of Nigerian authorities.”
These movements were influenced by a narrative increasingly shaped by unconfirmed reports and politically charged claims.
why is this important
Using questionable data to justify military intervention raises serious ethical and strategic concerns.
Military action based on unverified information could lead to erroneous attacks and civilian casualties. Stories of Christian genocide, even if not based on reliable evidence, risk distorting foreign policy and fueling sectarian tensions. Lawmakers’ reliance on data from untrained sources highlights the dangers of politicizing human rights issues.
This incident highlights the importance of reliable information in shaping international policy and military engagement.
What you need to know
Nigeria continues to face serious security challenges from various armed groups, including Islamic extremists.
Boko Haram and other jihadist groups have been active for more than a decade, attacking both Christian and Muslim communities. Nairametrics has reported extensively on the growing security situation in northern Nigeria, including rising numbers of displaced people and deaths. U.S. military operations in Nigeria are rare and usually coordinated with Nigerian authorities, but the legitimacy of such actions depends on the accuracy of the intelligence behind them.
Relying on dubious sources for military decisions could further complicate Nigeria’s security and diplomatic dynamics.
