The Nigerian Government Has A Fragile Relationship With The Church

History books show that organized religions have never shied away from politics and socio-political issues, from the Iranian revolution to anti-apartheid movements, a trend is observed. Nonetheless, analysts have opined that the church (representative of other religious societies) and the state must operate as separate realms without ignoring their interdependence. In Nigeria, the relationship between the church and the government is characterized by reproof, threats of sanctions, and in some rare cases, alliance. The recently concluded meeting between the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria (CBCN) and President Bola Tinubu shows that this relationship remains fragile especially when criticism is involved.

On July 31, 2026, after the CBCN’s private meeting with President Tinubu, Cardinal Onaiyekan—one of the delegates—revealed the contents of their discussion in an interview with Arise TV. Cardinal Onaiyekan explained that the bishops had raised prevalent concerns about the country’s security, education and economy. He claimed that the president had countered their claims regarding the state of the economy, insisting instead that everything in the country was working well. Cardinal Onaiyekan concluded that President Tinubu must be misinformed about the true state of things in the country. The interview was met with heavy criticism and rebuttal from the Presidency, which declared that the cardinal had gone out of line by revealing the issues discussed and, more importantly, had abandoned his duty of political neutrality. 

In June 2026, Pastor Adeboye remarked at a church gathering that he was not in support of those who criticize President Tinubu over the national insecurity issue. Rather, he believed that the president had done his best and could not possibly be expected to ‘put on khaki and fight’. This statement was quickly interpreted as support for the administration and its efforts. However, the Continental Overseer of the denomination issued an official statement explaining that the religious leader’s comments were meant to explain the constitutional role of a Commander-in-Chief. Despite the widespread discourse that followed, the matter did not earn the attention or comment of the Presidency. 

The comparison of these incidents raises a question: are religious interferences generally frowned upon by the Nigerian government, or only when they criticize the administration? The Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Relations, Sunday Dare, accused the CBCN of partisan posturing, alongside other denouncements from pro-Tinubu administration officials. The partisan allegations hold if it is proven that Cardinal Onaiyekan or the CBCN has pledged support for a political party or figure. However, since such proof has not been presented, the actions of the Cardinal and the religious association can be understood as social advocacy.

Beyond the question of the appropriateness of the CBCN’s actions, one must ask why the Presidency’s communication lines are reduced to informal rebuttals such as these. The need for this administration to reply to every form of criticism or opposition in the media is quite concerning and diminishes the status of the Presidency. Presidential communication should deliver necessary information with extensive public value, not debate opposition on behalf of the President. The office of presidential communication outlives administrations and must be handled with the formality it demands.

Moreover, this issue brings to mind the July 2022 scandal where it was revealed that the All Progressives Congress (APC) had paid certain individuals to pose as Christian leaders at the unveiling of the vice-presidential candidate. The ruse was used to suggest that Christians had endorsed President Tinubu and Vice-President Kashim Shettima ahead of the 2023 elections. However, the Catholic Secretariat of Nigeria quickly caught on to the disguise and distanced itself from it, explaining that they had not sent any representatives to the event. The current administration was desperate to fabricate church support before the elections, and at the time they saw no wrong in the church’s alliance with their political party. Conversely, in light of the CBCN’s express dissatisfaction with the administration, they have been quick to call for political neutrality.

It is agreed that religious societies and leaders cannot be openly partisan, or else they tow an ambiguous line. However, they reserve the right to speak up on social issues as they affect members of their respective societies and the nation as a whole. This advocacy does not constitute partisanship, but reflects a duty that the Church owes to the state. The line between partisanship and social advocacy may appear blurry when the advocacy requires criticism of the government. Nonetheless, the key to the differentiation lies in the Church’s reluctance to identify with any political candidate or party. Cardinal Onaiyekan has spoken severally concerning the state of things in the country but specifically concerning the national insecurity. Still, this cannot be classified as partisanship.

The Nigerian government must learn to see beyond its criticisms and address the core issues behind them. The CBCN has reflected the sentiments of many Nigerians regarding the economic and security challenges in the country. Rather than attack them, the government should address these issues swiftly. As for the broader relationship between the Church and the Nigerian government, each entity must understand their duties to the public and their followers, and adhere to them strictly. They must also understand they exist within the same realm—the state—so they cannot be extricated from one another. Their relationship should be complementary in functionality, not riddled with backlash, detraction, and chaos.