In a jaw-dropping revelation that's dominating headlines across Nigeria and beyond, a New York Times investigation has uncovered that recent US airstrikes in northwestern Nigeria may have been influenced, at least in part, by reports from an unlikely source: Emeka Umeagbalasi, a screwdriver and wrench seller operating a modest shop in the bustling Onitsha market, Anambra State.
The strikes, carried out on December 26, 2025 (just after Christmas), targeted ISIS terrorist camps in Sokoto State. Former US President Donald Trump announced the operation, describing it as hitting "Islamic terrorist camps," while Nigerian authorities confirmed it as a collaborative effort requested by the government.
But the twist? US Republican lawmakers including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Representative Riley Moore of Virginia, and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey have repeatedly cited Umeagbalasi's work in amplifying claims of a systematic "Christian genocide" in Nigeria. These assertions, pushed amid Trump's request for a probe into alleged persecution of Christians, appear to have fed into the broader narrative justifying US intervention.
Umeagbalasi, who founded the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) and runs the NGO from his home alongside his wife, has documented what he claims are over 125,000 Christian deaths in Nigeria since 2009. His methodology? A mix of Google searches, Nigerian media reports, secondary sources, and data from groups like Open Doors. The New York Times describes him as "an unlikely source," noting his tendency to assume victims are Christian in areas with significant Christian populations during mass killings or abductions.
The report highlights how spotty or unverified research from this small-scale trader and activist has been leveraged by high-profile US politicians to promote the idea that Christians are being deliberately targeted for slaughter in Africa's most populous nation. While the US maintains extensive intelligence networks, the inclusion of Umeagbalasi's claims has raised eyebrows about the quality and reliability of information shaping such serious military decisions.
Nigerian officials have pushed back hard on the "Christian genocide" narrative. The Presidency has dismissed it as originating from "one fellow in Onitsha," a clear nod to Umeagbalasi. Related commentary from figures like Sheikh Ahmad Gumi has accused the US of covering up broader issues, while the airstrikes themselves have sparked debates over foreign involvement in Nigeria's security challenges.
The contrast couldn't be starker: a man selling tools in a southeastern market allegedly helping fuel airstrikes hundreds of miles away in the northwest, all tied to international claims of religious persecution. Whether Umeagbalasi's reports were a primary driver or just one piece of a larger intelligence puzzle, the story underscores the unpredictable ways local voices can ripple into global policy and how narratives of violence in Nigeria continue to draw intense international scrutiny.
As reactions pour in online, many Nigerians are left stunned, amused, and concerned in equal measure by this extraordinary chain of events. The full New York Times piece paints a vivid picture of how advocacy, even from humble beginnings, can unexpectedly intersect with superpower military actions.
This developing story continues to fuel discussions about intelligence sources, religious tensions, and foreign interventions in Nigeria's complex security landscape. More details are expected as the implications unfold.