Former presidential media aide Bashir Ahmad has asserted that a Plateau-based Christian cleric, Rev. Ezekiel Dachomo, previously made remarks more offensive than those of Islamic cleric Sheikh Sani Yahaya Jingir, whose recent comments have triggered national outrage and demands for accountability.
The controversy erupted after Jingir, speaking at an event in Kano State, reaffirmed his support for a Muslim-Muslim ticket in the 2027 general Elections. He argued that the All Progressives Congress’s decision to field same-faith candidates was justified by the numerical strength of Muslims over Christians in the country. The cleric reportedly referred to Christians as infidels and declared that Nigeria belongs to Muslims, statements that immediately drew widespread condemnation across social media and civil society, with several groups calling for his arrest on charges of incitement.
Reacting to the backlash, popular television host Rufai Oseni posed a hypothetical question on his official X handle, asking what the public reaction would have been if a Christian cleric had made comparable remarks. “If a Christian cleric had said what Jingir said,” Oseni wrote, leaving the sentence open-ended to underscore perceived double standards in the enforcement of hate speech norms.
In a direct response on the same platform, Ahmad contended that such a scenario had already occurred. “It is not a competition, Rufai, but I can tell you that Rev. Ezekiel Dachomo has said things that were even worse. Both utterances are wrong,” he stated. Ahmad did not specify the exact nature or timing of Dachomo’s alleged remarks, but his intervention shifted the discourse toward a broader examination of religious rhetoric from leaders across faith lines.
The exchange has amplified concerns about the role of religious figures in shaping political narratives ahead of the next electoral cycle. While security agencies have not announced any formal action against either cleric, the episode underscores the volatility of faith-based discourse in Nigeria’s public sphere. Analysts warn that unchecked inflammatory rhetoric from influential religious leaders risks deepening communal divisions and undermining national cohesion, particularly as political alignments begin to crystallize for 2027.
As the debate continues, observers emphasize the need for consistent application of laws against hate speech, regardless of the speaker’s religious affiliation, to preserve public order and protect the rights of all citizens.
