Gimba Kakanda's Genocide Denial: Dismissing Claims in Nigeria While Obfuscating Gaza
In a media landscape where state-aligned voices often cloak denial in the guise of nuance, Gimba Kakanda, a senior special assistant to Nigeria's president and analyst writing for Al Jazeera, exemplifies how genocide denial permeates official narratives. By titling his piece "No, Bill Maher, there is no 'Christian genocide' in Nigeria," Kakanda engages in outright denial, invoking the term 'genocide' only to dismiss it for Nigeria's conflicts, which involve many multiple homicides targeting implied groups through ethnic, resource, or religious patterns.
Under a unified definition of genocide as "many multiple homicides," where the group element is implied by the multiplicity and selection, both Nigeria's crises, from Boko Haram's indiscriminate killings to herder-farmer clashes, and Israel's military-driven collective punishment against Palestinians meet the threshold irrefutably. Yet Kakanda's article deploys a web of denial tactics to erode this reality, framing Nigeria's violence as too "complex" for the label while subtly undermining Gaza's gravity through comparison. Such denial is not post-hoc reflection but an active enabler during the homicides, justifying ongoing operations and delaying halts, much like how "scholars" embed subtle denial in resolutions, as seen in the International Association of Genocide Scholars' (IAGS) recent Gaza statement, which qualifies atrocities as reactive to Hamas, rewriting history to start on October 7, 2023, and blaming victims by associating all Palestinians with militants. "Might Makes Denial Right" here reveals how power, whether Nigerian governmental or Western scholarly, bends categories to sanitize force, ensuring the apparatus endures unchallenged. This article dissects Kakanda's strategies through genocide denial's 11 stages, exposing how they perpetuate evasion for both Nigeria and Gaza.
The very title and premise of Kakanda's article scream denial: any piece declaring "No, it's not genocide" is inherently Genocide Denial. First, the word 'genocide' has been invoked for Nigeria's conflicts, as Maher did, and few doubt that many multiple homicides have occurred amid Boko Haram's attacks, banditry, and herder-farmer violence, leaving scant room to refute the accusation under a straightforward definition. Second, once 'genocide' is raised for any reason, it precludes outright denial; accusations must be heard and addressed, not dismissed on semantic grounds like legal intent or complexity, especially when an organized military crushes a people group in Gaza through collective punishment. This mirrors how police must respond to every credible call without preemptively rejecting concerns as invalid. Third, denial unfolds throughout the genocide's lifespan, not merely afterward as some scholars posit; initial justifications by perpetrators enable the killings to begin, and ongoing obfuscation sustains them. Scholars, often blessed by entities benefiting from cover-ups, craft frameworks with built-in denial, as in the IAGS resolution on Gaza, which, despite declaring Israeli genocide, subtly denies by foregrounding the October 7 Hamas attack as a trigger, blaming victims through collective association, and rewriting history to ignore pre-2023 occupation and dispossession. Kakanda's dismissal thus not only shields Nigeria's power structures but aligns with global denial patterns that delay accountability for homicides in both regions.
Kakanda's core tactic exemplifies Stage 2: Challenge the Intent, arguing that Nigeria's conflicts lack deliberate religious targeting, positioning them as "multi-faceted, driven by ethnic rivalries, land disputes and criminality, with religion often secondary." He insists Boko Haram opposes the state as "apostate," not Christians specifically, and that most victims are Muslims, while herder-farmer clashes stem from resources, not faith. This ignores how multiple homicides imply group targeting through patterns, whether ethnic, communal, or perceived religious affiliations, meeting the genocide definition regardless of proclaimed motives. By emphasizing "complexity," Kakanda deploys Stage 7: Call for 'More Research,' implying simplistic labels like genocide overlook nuances, delaying acknowledgment and action. Yet this complexity serves as obfuscation, much like counterterrorism claims in Gaza mask collective punishment; in Nigeria, it preserves the military and governmental apparatus amid ongoing operations.
Further, Kakanda leverages Stage 5: Assert Political Motivations, framing genocide claims as "coordinated attacks on Nigeria's nationhood" by "foreign actors" and "propaganda" linked to Nigeria's UN support for a two-state solution in Palestine. He accuses Maher and outlets like Fox News of "mischief-makers" twisting Nigeria's stance to "undermine the gravity of the situation in Gaza," suggesting allegations are fabricated for partisan gain. This deflection positions denial as defense against external malice, appealing to nationalistic audiences while broadening to Stage 10: Rewrite History, by recasting Nigeria's conflicts as non-religious, erasing mutual accusations of genocide from both Muslim and Christian leaders over decades. He highlights the Nigerian Civil War as rooted in "political and socioeconomic grievances," not faith, and notes Christian-led security forces to undermine complicity claims, crafting a narrative that excludes systematic group destruction.
Kakanda also embeds Stage 1: Question the Scale, downplaying religious violence as "only a fraction of Nigeria's homicides," with "inflated statistics" from dubious sources counting victims as Christian "by default." This suggests exaggeration, even as he acknowledges "tragic losses" for Christians, mirroring how deniers minimize the toll in Gaza amid balanced casualty narratives. Tied to Stage 4: Highlight Counter-Violencei, he emphasizes Muslim-on-Muslim killings by Boko Haram and bandits, creating a "two-sided" or indiscriminate frame that obscures targeted homicides against implied groups like Christians in certain clashes. Ironically, his invocation of Gaza to critique Maher draws Stage 8: Draw False Comparisons, implying Nigeria's violence isn't genocide while Israel's is, yet under the definition, both involve many multiple homicides; this pivot trivializes neither but delays halting either's operations.
Moreover, Kakanda subtly engages Stage 11: Claim Religious Oppression, inverting it by suggesting genocide allegations malign Nigeria's Muslim-majority leadership and "stoke ethno-religious divisions," portraying claims as anti-Muslim propaganda that risks "deepening divisions." This deflects from homicides by casting accusers as discriminators, preserving U.S.-backed or state-sanctioned actions. His praise for President Tinubu's security gains, with Christian officials listed to prove no bias, masks how denial enables continued force, much like scholarly caveats in the IAGS resolution obscure Israel's full historical genocide against Palestinians.
In the end, this dissection has exposed just a handful of Kakanda's uses of genocide denial stages within his Al Jazeera opinion, but his writing overflows with additional layers, threading denial into every element of his defense to protect Nigeria's persistent genocide from examination while indirectly bolstering evasion around Gaza. Regardless of the clever stacking of these tactics, spanning from intent challenges to historical rewrites, the fundamental truth stands firm: the homicides fueled by military and communal forces amount to genocide, rendering all dodges irrelevant. In this view, denial functions as the initial phase of mourning for a crumbling authority; it grasps at confusion since embracing reality would require ceasing the actions, breaking down the system, and facing the fact that "Might Makes Denial Right" endures only until it doesn't.