US Troops in Nigeria: We Seek Clarifications – MURIC
The Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) has called for urgent clarifications from the Federal Government over the reported presence of United States troops in Nigeria, expressing concern about national sovereignty and the safety of Muslim leaders.
In a press release dated Thursday, 6 February 2026, and signed by its Founder and Executive Director, Professor Ishaq Akintola, the Islamic rights group described the deployment as disturbing, particularly due to what it called secrecy surrounding the move.
MURIC referenced confirmations by both the United States and the Nigerian government that American forces were already on ground, noting that while the Defence Minister described them as “not combat forces,” the development still raised serious questions.
“MURIC considers this development as an overreach and the secrecy surrounding US troop deployment to Nigeria disturbing,” the statement said. “While we welcome cooperation between Nigeria and the US in the fight against terrorism, we do not think US boots on ground is necessary.”
The group rejected claims of a Christian genocide in Nigeria, insisting that insecurity affects Nigerians of all faiths. “We assert that there is nothing like Christian genocide in Nigeria. What we have is terrorism, insecurity and religious persecution on both sides of Christians and Muslims, and what we lack is religious tolerance,” Akintola stated.
MURIC further argued that Muslims, particularly in Southern Nigeria, have long suffered religious persecution, accusing the United States of adopting a selective approach. “It therefore beggars belief that America… will descend on Nigeria to selectively fight or ‘protect’ one group,” the group said.
The organisation warned against any actions targeting Muslim leaders, saying, “If, therefore, it is true that US troops are already on ground in Nigeria, we demand that there should be no clampdown on religious activities of Muslims or on Muslim leaders. No Muslim leader should disappear or be assassinated and no renditions.”
It also criticised the Federal Government’s description of the deployed forces as a “small team,” arguing that the stated objective of protecting Christians creates negative perceptions. “Even that ‘small team’ of US troops in Nigeria amounts to the presence of a Christian Army in view of the emphasis given the goal of US invasion… protecting Nigerian Christians,” MURIC said.
According to the group, such perceptions could fuel tension locally and internationally. “The stated objective of protecting Christians only makes any American boot on ground in Nigeria a Christian Army… and constitutes a threat to global peace,” the statement added.
MURIC accused some Nigerian Christians of already using the reported US presence to harass Muslims and described the situation as “absolutely unacceptable.”
The group also faulted Nigeria’s National Assembly, saying it would be held responsible for failing to demand accountability. “What part of the cooperation between Nigeria and the US necessitates the presence of US troops on Nigerian soil? Was the NASS carried along?” it queried.
In conclusion, MURIC questioned the silence of civil society groups and urged Nigerians to reflect on historical lessons about unchecked state actions. “How ‘small’ is ‘small’?” the group asked, calling for transparency and national dialogue on the issue.
