Election 2027: Fear of Trump, ‘Werekaci’ and Nigerian Politics

“Fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. But it is time to proceed with caution, with clear eyes and a steady hand.”

As a child, whenever I refused to eat or take bitter traditional medicine, my mother threatened to call Werekaci, the unstable and aggressive man who lived at the end of our street. The fear alone was enough to make me obey instantly. I simply obeyed anything out of fear.

Years later, I have come to recognize that Werekaci has many faces: on social media, in political spaces, and sometimes in the corridors of global power. The psychology remains the same: invoke a scary name and watch people abandon their better judgment.

It is through this prism that I now see the growing anxiety in some Nigerian quarters over US President Donald Trump’s attitude towards Nigeria – and the implications this anxiety may have for our 2027 general elections.

Recently, after publishing a series of opinion pieces challenging the narrative of so-called “Christian genocide” promoted by separatist supporters and ethno-religious agitators, my social media pages were flooded with coordinated hostility. Within less than an hour of one post, more than 500 offensive comments appeared, attacking not only me but also my family, my culture, my faith, my region and even my country.

Some attentive readers later pointed out that most of the accounts were fake, bots and faceless contacts with no real constituency. I have since adopted a simple rule: I welcome criticism from reasonable people, but I eliminate reckless and bad-faith attacks from extremists.

The same psychology of manipulation appears to shape parts of the discourse about Nigeria and President Trump, whose disparaging remarks about our country are well documented. In previous writings I have addressed many of these claims, particularly his repeated references to “protecting Nigerian Christians” without acknowledging Muslim victims of violence. What is worrying is that some Nigerians are now amplifying such narratives for domestic political gain.

When American forces reportedly launched an attack in Sokoto on Christmas Eve, Trump immediately addressed a Christian audience, invoking what he claimed he could do. Yet Sokoto is neither the epicenter of terrorism nor a major hotspot of banditry in Nigeria. The target appeared deliberately symbolic due to its Islamic heritage.

So far, the Nigerian government has done everything to appease Washington. Officials repeatedly traveled to the United States, hosted American lawmakers in Nigeria and spent large sums on U.S. lobbying firms. Nigeria has also ceded ground on arms procurement decisions, facilitated the release of Catholic schoolchildren, and even allowed American troops to operate on its territory – an unprecedented development in our history. Yet the so-called Christian genocide campaign has continued to resurface.

Then, on Wednesday 4 March 2026, as Muslims left a mosque after breaking their Ramadan fast in Ngoshe, Borno state, terrorists massacred the Imam and several worshipers while kidnapping more than 100 women and children. There has been no comparable protest, not from American lawmakers and certainly not from President Trump. The silence was both deafening and telling: the tragedy simply didn’t fit the narrative being promoted. But the truth remains clear: for them, the lives of Muslims do not seem to matter.

Meanwhile, among the more reckless accusations circulating in my posts is that Muslims are complicit in terrorism. I do not dignify such claims with extended debate. Long before Boko Haram became a household name, I had written extensively condemning those who falsely invoke Islam to justify violence. These writings appeared in major Nigerian newspapers.

During the ethno-religious conflicts that spread from Maiduguri to Onitsha in 2006, exactly twenty years ago, one of my articles, titled “Killing in the Name of the Devil”, appeared in national newspapers, including The Punch, Leadership, Daily Sun, Vanguard, Financial Standard, Daily Trust and Daily Champion, among others. The article remains accessible on my blog, including the publication dates.

Over the years, I have written about Boko Haram, banditry and the failures of the Nigerian state to fight terrorism, always as a proud Muslim from the North, guided by the Qur’anic injunction that states: “Fear an uproar which will affect not only those who caused it, but also the innocent among you.” (Quran 8:25).

Ironically, when I criticize my people, some critics encourage me. But the moment I point out their similar flaws, that applause quickly turns to outrage. I have never been hypocritical on this matter. I do not tolerate bullying, be it institutional, political or digital, and I do not argue with fools.

Nordics, contrary to certain stereotypes, are much more tolerant than the fanatics often portrayed in social media debates. The behavior of a divisive minority should not be confused with the character of the majority.

General Theophilus Danjuma, for example, is widely respected in the North for advocating for a united Nigeria where all citizens are equal regardless of faith or ethnicity. Similarly, when Abubakar Badaru, a Muslim from Jigawa, was replaced as defense minister by General Christopher Musa, a Christian from Kaduna, mainstream Northern opinion – including Islamic clerics – welcomed the development.

This acceptance was particularly strong in Sokoto and Maiduguri, where Musa had previously lived, served with distinction and protected civilian lives, leading to the surrender or neutralization of thousands of terrorists under his control.

Following recent global events, some commentators have interpreted the US-Israeli attacks on Iran as a warning to northern Nigeria, even urging President Trump to oppose Sharia law and Muslim-Muslim tickets. Although the conflict in the Middle East has been widely condemned by several global powers, these critics continue to frame the issue through a simplistic “us versus them” narrative.

They also overlook a geopolitical reality: Iran’s isolation has been exacerbated in part by the silence of several neighboring Arab Muslim states, which either ignored the attack on another Muslim nation – albeit a non-Arab one – or appeared aligned with the attackers. Ironically, critics also ignore a demographic fact: Iran today has a larger Christian population than Israel.

Some commentators also argue that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu may be wary of provoking Donald Trump, citing the pressure Washington has placed on countries such as Iran and Venezuela. They therefore foresee a possible political adjustment within the presidency, including speculation that Trump may push Tinubu to reconsider the current joint ticket before the 2027 elections.

While it would be unfair to deny Vice President Kashim Shettima the continuity enjoyed by his predecessors, Nigeria’s political choices must remain sovereign. One point must also be stated clearly: should Shettima be forced to sacrifice his position under external pressure, President Tinubu should ensure that any adjustments do not deepen the already evident imbalance in federal appointments.

Today, several key institutions of Nigeria’s economic and financial system are disproportionately led by individuals from the same geopolitical zone and largely from a single religious background. The Ministry of Finance, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Federal Revenue Service (FIRS/NRS), PenCom, NDIC, EFCC, NAICOM, AMCON, Bank of Agriculture and Bank of Industry are not lesser places. They represent the top of the national economy.

When the leadership of these institutions leans towards “Yorubanization” or “Christianization,” it becomes more than a matter of optics: it begins to strain the fragile social contract on which Nigeria’s unity rests. The Igbo, who feel excluded from sensitive and lucrative positions, must also be considered in any recalibration aimed at strengthening national cohesion.

The global community – including sectors of the American public itself – is increasingly realizing that fear of Trump is not the beginning of wisdom. It could be the beginning of capitulation.

Nigeria must resist the temptation to organize its domestic politics according to the moods of a foreign leader. We must engage Washington where necessary, react where appropriate, and above all ensure that our national decisions – including those about who will lead us in 2027 – are made in Abuja, not Mar-a-Lago.

Werekaci could be noisy. But he doesn’t live here.

Yushau A. Shuaib, author of “An Encounter with the Spymaster”, writes from [email protected]