Recently, and precisely on October 31, 2025, Nigeria was designated as a Country of Particular Concern by the United States. The designation followed weeks of a well-coordinated media campaign centered on research that concluded there is a genocide in Nigeria against Christians.
The research was led by Mike Arnold, a missionary who served as the Mayor of the City of Blanco, a small town in Texas, United States, from May 2023 to May 2025.
The release of findings from Arnold’s multi-year research on October 14, 2025, sparked a flurry of reactions, notably from members of the U.S. Congress to media organizations, church leaders, Muslim leaders, and civil society groups.
The Nigerian government also responded, rejecting the report’s conclusion that a Christian genocide is taking place in the country. Many individuals have since critiqued the research, pointing out its flaws and gaps; this article aims to build upon that effort.
A fundamental issue in research, especially when addressing sensitive topics such as genocide, is that of positioning and positionalities.
This concept acknowledges that researchers bring to their work a range of beliefs, values, worldviews, experiences, identities, and assumptions that shape their perspectives and approaches to scholarly inquiry, as well as their relationships with participants and the issues they investigate.
Researchers’ positionalities influence the topics they choose to study, their framing of research questions, the phrasing of those questions, their selection of participants, methodologies, analyses, interpretations, and even the presentation of findings. In other words, researchers’ positionings and positionalities can significantly affect the overall quality of their work.
For this reason, this article uses the lens of positionings and positionalities to interrogate Mike Arnold’s acclaimed research, which concludes that a Christian genocide is occurring in Nigeria.
The analytical framework guiding this series requires that we ask: Who is Mike Arnold, and what are his positionings, positionalities, and identities in relation to the issue he investigated and the conclusions he reached? As noted earlier, Mike Arnold is a Christian missionary who holds an executive MBA and has professional experience in journalism and broadcasting.
According to Arnold, his first trip to Nigeria was in 2010, when he visited as a board member of Unity for Africa, a faith-based organization founded by the late Prof. John Ofoegbu.
During that visit, he delivered a keynote address at the 20th Annual International Ministry Leadership Conference in Nigeria. Since then, he has made fifteen subsequent trips to the country, describing his intent as one of service to Nigeria, a nation he has referred to as his “second home.” However, in a recent report in Punch Newspaper, Arnold said he undertook his research in response to what he described as “systematic attacks against Christians” in parts of northern Nigeria.
On his fourteenth visit, Arnold met with former President Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (GEJ) to discuss his mission and activities in Nigeria. During this time, he also connected with several Nigerians, mostly Christians, including Reno Omokri, a former presidential aide to GEJ. According to Arnold, after reading Omokri’s book Fact Versus Fiction: The True Story of the Jonathan Years, Chibok, 2015, and the Conspiracies, he reached out to Omokri via the latter’s website in December 2023 to discuss his proposed research on internally displaced people and his plans to raise awareness about what he called a “Christian genocide” in Nigeria. Omokri responded to Arnold’s request through WhatsApp, and the two later had a video call to discuss these issues. Arnold claimed that during their conversation, Omokri invited him to his 50th birthday celebration in Kenya.
It is evident that Arnold was already familiar with Omokri’s earlier statements, including his January 29, 2017, tweets alleging that a Christian genocide was occurring in Nigeria. In the same book, Omokri wrote that Nigeria had become “the most dangerous place in the world to be a Christian” and accused former President Buhari of favoring Northern Muslims while discriminating against Southern Christians, claims he described as the defining feature of Buhari’s administration. On January 22, 2024, Arnold attended Omokri’s 50th birthday celebration in Kenya, where he presented him with the golden key to the City of Blanco. While handing it over, Arnold said, “In recognition of your notable contribution to humanity, making our world a better place, it is my profound honor to give you the key to the City of Blanco as the Mayor of the City. You have friends in Texas. You now own Texas.” The golden key gift reinforces a sense of ideological alignment and personal admiration of Arnold for Omokri, thereby deepening the echo chamber effect.
In a subsequent interview with Olufemi Adediran of Punch Newspaper, Arnold explained that he reached out to Omokri because “he was out there talking about Christian genocide” and had written a book about Goodluck Jonathan’s administration. Arnold appeared to take Omokri’s claims at face value, both from the book and from their December 2023 discussion about Christian persecution. These exchanges clearly shaped the “research” Arnold later used to claim that a Christian genocide was occurring in Nigeria. His conclusions repeated Omokri’s earlier assertions, often using identical language to describe the alleged persecution of Christians and to depict Buhari’s presidency as complicit in it. This is a telltale sign of intellectual influence and bias.
When asked how he would respond to officials who dismissed his report as “foreign propaganda” or “missionary sensationalism,” Arnold replied, “I will accuse them of being complicit in genocide because the facts are obvious. … Reno Omokri knows all about it. Our first conversation when I called him was because his book talks about it, and I asked how many they were, and he said they were more than nine million.”
Arnold went on to accuse Omokri of hypocrisy, saying, “He knows, and he does nothing. That, to me, is worse than Adolf Hitler himself. He knows what is happening; he talked about it not long ago; he was really charged about the Nigerian Christian genocide, and yet he lies about it. He is complicit in aiding and abetting.” Arnold added, “Reno clearly just says whatever he is paid to say. He obviously has zero integrity. If he could go from one administration yelling and trying to get the world’s attention to the Christian genocide in the North, and then in the next administration, he calls it a hoax, I don’t think anybody should ever take that man seriously. He didn’t refute his previous claims; he just ignored them as if he never said that. Clearly, he is just a prostitute of rhetoric.”
Arnold’s later disavowal of Omokri followed the release of his research findings, which Omokri publicly rejected. By alleging that Omokri “just says whatever he is paid to say,” Arnold seemed to suggest that Omokri’s earlier claims about a Christian genocide and his indictment of Buhari as complicit in the alleged crime were financially motivated. Yet, despite attacking Omokri’s credibility, Arnold did not dismiss the genocide claim itself. This inconsistency raises serious credibility concerns about Arnold’s findings, which appear heavily influenced by Omokri’s prior narratives. The concern deepens given that Arnold initially regarded Omokri as a supporter and potential advocate for his research. Reflecting on their fallout, Arnold remarked, “There is a higher standard for a friend. I knew from the beginning he was cultivating me as a PR asset. He was never concerned about what I cared about. He was cultivating me so that he could quote me as a prominent mayor. I felt God was leading me and that I had a date with destiny, but he is a manipulator, and that is what he does for a living.”
Another issue of concern emerged when, after Omokri dismissed Arnold’s genocide claim as unfounded, Arnold downplayed the symbolic key he had earlier presented to him, saying it was “a souvenir key from a gift shop” and “not an official act as a mayor.” He added, “The position of mayor is voluntary, and my town is a very small one. That was not an official act as a mayor; that was me as a birthday guest presenting a gift. You can order one tomorrow. Nothing is official or legal about the presentation of the cheap key.” However, Arnold had not made such a clarification when he originally presented the gift. This contradiction further raises concerns about quid pro quo motives and the overall credibility of his conduct and claims.
The above narrative points to substantial evidence that the exposure to the thoughts and rhetoric previously espoused by Reno Omokri regarding a “Christian genocide” influenced Mike Arnold’s research and its conclusions. The analysis also shows that Arnold reached out to Omokri because “he was out there talking about Christian genocide.” This suggests that Omokri’s discourse provided the conceptual lens through which Arnold viewed the situation, rather than approaching the issue with an open and balanced perspective. The analysis further highlights elements of confirmation bias and rhetorical convergence, as Arnold’s public statements, including claims that Nigerian government officials were “complicit in genocide,” closely mirror Omokri’s earlier rhetoric, almost word for word. Moreover, after Omokri distanced himself from the “Christian genocide” narrative, Arnold reacted with anger and disavowed Omokri personally, yet he failed to revisit or question the conclusions of his own report.
Arnold’s positionality as a Christian, Western missionary, and local political leader helps explain why he was susceptible to, and uncritical of, Omokri’s framing. His worldview as a Christian missionary, combined with an emotional connection to narratives of Christian persecution, likely predisposed him to accept Omokri’s claims without sufficient critical reflection.
The Acclaimed Genocide Research: How It Started
On one occasion, Mr. Arnold claimed that his research was an undercover operation that began in 2021. During that time, he stated that he recorded his conversations with two pastors who had authored books documenting massacres that occurred within their communities. These books include one entitled Pictorial Evidence of Boko Haram Mayhem Meted on Gwoza Christians of Borno State, Nigeria, From 2013–2020: Martyrs.
More recently, on October 18, 2025, during an interview with The Punch newspaper, Arnold provided a different account regarding the commencement of his acclaimed research. When asked, “How did you gather your findings?” he replied, “I have been investigating this since 2019.”
Gwoza is one of the southern Local Government Areas in Borno State and is a multi-religious area with significant populations of both Christians and Muslims. On May 30, 2014, the traditional ruler of Gwoza, a Muslim, Alhaji Idrissa Timta, was killed by Boko Haram. The insurgents subsequently captured the area in August 2014, establishing their caliphate headquarters there and appointing their own emirs. This resulted in the killing of numerous Muslims and Christians, as well as the displacement of many residents to Cameroon and the surrounding mountainous regions. The Nigerian army recaptured Gwoza from Boko Haram on March 28, 2015, shortly before the presidential election, which President Goodluck Jonathan lost to Muhammadu Buhari.
The International Christian Concern described Boko Haram’s capture of Gwoza as a targeted terror attack against Christians, a claim reiterated by Arnold in his research. However, several other reports, including one by Kevin Sieff on April 12, 2015, depicted the insurgents’ attack on Gwoza as indiscriminate, noting that Boko Haram burned, maimed, and destroyed everything in their path. This perspective was reinforced by Hamza Idris in the Daily Trust on February 1, 2014, who wrote:
“Observers believe that the biggest irony surrounding recent attacks is that the perpetrators have no preferred targets. A plausible example is last Sunday’s incident in Kawuri village of Konduga Local Council, where, apart from the killing of dozens of people, many houses, the village market, and mosques were destroyed. About the same time, a church was attacked in neighboring Adamawa State, where worshippers were slain.”
Eyewitness accounts cited in Idris’s report contradict Arnold’s assertion that Boko Haram’s attacks in Gwoza specifically targeted Christians.
This discrepancy raises important questions: Why did Arnold not conduct similar undercover operations to engage with Muslim families and mosque community leaders in Gwoza? Did he make any effort to collect data from Muslim sources in the area where his research began, such as documenting the number of mosques, Muslims, and Muslim communities victimized by Boko Haram’s violence? The absence of such efforts suggests selective engagement with sources, indicating that Arnold’s personal, social, and religious standpoints may have influenced his choice of data and interpretation. His decision to amplify the voices of Christian victims while neglecting others points to a possible confirmation bias, in which the researcher seeks evidence that supports a predetermined narrative.
Equally, it is pertinent to question why Arnold failed to address the absence of documentation on Muslim victims in the books and other evidence presented to him at the inception of his purported undercover investigation. An unbiased and reflexive inquiry—untainted by the researcher’s positionality—would have prompted him to critically evaluate the titles and themes of the books shared by the Gwoza pastors he interviewed, which focused exclusively on Christian suffering while omitting the experiences of Muslim victims. This raises both ethical and representational concerns, as it risks mischaracterizing the broader reality of the conflict. Here again, there is compelling evidence of positionality issues in Arnold’s acclaimed research.
Conflict of Interests: Arnold, Me & Ms Hanatu
Arnold’s acclaimed research also includes a post-production documentary featuring, among others, two principal individuals, one of whom is Ms. Hanatu Katghaya, whom he identifies as a victim of the Gwoza genocide attacks against Christians. The documentary, titled “Me and Ms. Hanatu,” was produced by Africa Arise International (AAI), a not-for-profit, non-governmental organization (NGO) founded in 2019 by Arnold and Pastor Jed D’Grace, whom Arnold refers to as his “covenant brother.” According to Arnold, the principal mission of AAI is “evangelism and leadership development.” AAI also has a sister organization, Africa Arise USA, which Arnold also co-founded.
Arnold portrays Ms. Hanatu, a native of northeastern Borno State, as a mother of three daughters and a survivor of the Boko Haram insurgency in Gwoza. Along with other survivors, she reportedly escaped the insurgency in 2014 and was relocated to the New Kuchingoro Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camp in Abuja. In one account, Arnold claimed that the discovery of the encampment was serendipitous, stating that “a series of unexpected events led us to discover the New Kuchingoro IDP camp, right in the nation’s capital.” Reinforcing this assertion elsewhere, he remarked that “Me & Ms. Hanatu follows the five-year journey of a small-town American who stumbles into a Nigerian refugee camp and makes a promise to a displaced schoolteacher: ‘I will tell your story.”
However, in another version of events, Arnold suggested that their visit to the New Kuchingoro camp resulted from a recommendation by a friend: “The tall Texan (Mike, our emphasis) who walked into her (Ms. Hanatu, our emphasis) hut was not what she expected. Mike had found her by happenstance, as his Nigerian ministry friend had suggested they visit an IDP camp.” This inconsistency implies that while Arnold may have met Ms. Hanatu by chance, the discovery of the IDP camp itself was not accidental.
Ms. Hanatu continued to reside in the encampment and, in December 2024, was appointed Head Teacher of Arise Academy, a school established by Arnold’s NGO, Africa Arise International. Founded in the summer of 2020 and fully funded by AAI, the school provides educational services to children living in the New Kuchingoro, Durumi, and Wassa IDP camps in Abuja. This development raises ethical concerns, as Ms. Hanatu serves both as a key subject of Arnold’s documentary and as an employee of his organization. The dual relationship between researcher and subject, particularly within a project framed as investigative research, presents a potential conflict of interest and raises questions about the objectivity of the data collected.
Furthermore, the Me & Ms. Hanatu documentary appears to have a commercial dimension. Arnold and his production team publicly solicited investors to fund its completion, stating:
“Of course, we cannot promise this film will be a blockbuster or generate a huge profit. Investment is a risk. … Join us as an investor in supporting this crucial production. Thank you for your interest in our documentary film now in production, Me & Ms. Hanatu.”
Given that the documentary is positioned as part of Arnold’s acclaimed research, this raises substantive concerns regarding conflicts of interest, research ethics, and the credibility of the findings supporting his claim of a Christian genocide in Nigeria. Additionally, the prospect that some participants in the documentary may benefit directly or indirectly from any financial proceeds further complicates the ethical standing and integrity of the research.
In light of the above considerations, Arnold’s research and the accompanying documentary raise a grave concern about the violation of the research ethical principles involving vulnerable populations. The apparent overlap of Arnold’s role as filmmaker, NGO founder, employer, and investigator suggests a blurring of professional boundaries that compromises objectivity and transparency. Moreover, the absence of clear evidence-informed consent, benefits-gaining, and the management of conflicts of interest contravenes ethical requirements for social research. Collectively, these omissions raise questions not only about the methodological rigor of Arnold’s work but also about its ethical legitimacy as a legitimate inquiry.
Education or Proselytization
The Arise Academies, established under Arnold’s initiative, serve two distinct categories of students. The first consists of Christian pupils whose education integrates a conventional grade school curriculum with biblical studies. The second category comprises Muslim students, who are provided with a traditional academic curriculum infused with Christian teachings, an approach that, according to Arnold, has contributed to the conversion of some Muslim families to Christianity. As he explained, “In our camps with a high population of Muslims, we focus on traditional curriculum and a lot of learning about Christlike love and values. Hearts are opening to the Gospel through our service to our Muslim families.”
Further elaborating on the pedagogical philosophy of the schools, Arnold remarked: “The people are weary and hungry for God. There are many Christians in our camps and also moderate Muslims. We show the love of Christ through serving and also the sharing of the Gospel story and scriptures. Singing and celebrating Christ in our gatherings brings our camp families together, and we honor Christ in this way.”
Arnold also acknowledged that some of the data used to substantiate his claims of a Christian genocide in Nigeria were, in part, derived from interactions within the Arise Academies. This admission raises significant questions regarding the reliability and objectivity of the data collection process. As he stated, “We have interviewed survivors across multiple states, operated schools in two IDP camps for both Christians and Muslims, with a third under construction, serving a present total of 550 students. We provide free, high-quality education, and in doing so, we hear their stories and their parents’ stories firsthand, as eyewitnesses.”
These circumstances further invite critical reflection on the methodological and ethical dimensions of Arnold’s work. Why did Africa Arise not employ Muslim teachers or volunteers to instruct Muslim students in the Arise Academies located within the IDP camps? Furthermore, why does the curriculum offered to Muslim students emphasize biblical rather than Quranic values? Such questions highlight broader concerns about inclusivity, cultural sensitivity, and the ethical neutrality of Africa Arise’s educational and research practices within internally displaced persons’ communities.
By inserting Christian teachings into educational activities directed at Muslim populations, Arnold commingled humanitarian engagement with proselytization. This compromises the ethical integrity of both the research and the interventions themselves. Moreover, the absence of reflexivity concerning Arnold’s positionality, particularly the influence of faith-based motivations and institutional affiliation, suggests a lack of critical self-awareness that is essential for maintaining objectivity and credibility in social research. Ultimately, the intersection of missionary objectives, data collection, and educational outreach within the Arise Academies exemplifies how unacknowledged positionality and inadequate ethical safeguards distorted the reality portrayed by Arnold and perpetuated the imbalances all over his claims, representations, and interpretations of the issues.
Selection, and Confirmation Bias Again
In addition to Gwoza, Arnold collected data from Ngoshe in southern Borno, a predominantly Christian area, particularly among ethnic groups such as the Marghi, Kibaku (also known as Chibok), Bura, and Higgi. Arnold himself noted, “My ministry in Nigeria has a sister congregation, More Than Conquerors Church, in Ngoshe, Gwoza, Borno State.” Nevertheless, it is evident that he neglected Muslim-majority areas that were also severely affected by Boko Haram and other insurgent activities. For instance, Baga and Doron Baga, where, according to an Amnesty International report dated January 15, 2015, “over 3,700 structures” were “damaged or completely destroyed” by Boko Haram. The report further observed that one of the towns “was almost wiped off the map in the space of four days,” concluding: “Of all Boko Haram assaults analysed by Amnesty International, this is the largest and most destructive yet. It represents a deliberate attack on civilians whose homes, clinics, and schools are now burnt-out ruins.”
Arnold also collected data from Bokkos in Plateau State and other areas of the Middle Belt, which are predominantly Christian. However, he excluded towns and villages in the Northwest and Northeast, which are Muslim-majority and have suffered extensive destruction due to insurgent activities. Inclusion of these areas could have materially influenced the conclusions Arnold reached. Their omission appears unlikely to be accidental, thereby reinforcing the assertion that Arnold’s research was shaped by selective sampling and confirmation bias, reflecting both methodological limitations and the influence of his positionality.
Activism, Positionality, and the Politicization of Research Findings
In a formal statement delivered in Abuja on October 14, 2025, Arnold assumed the posture of an activist and as a moral authority within the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN). He concluded that certain individuals “do not speak for Jesus,” in response to the CAN leadership’s earlier public rebuttal of his claim that a Christian genocide is occurring in Nigeria. Arnold further characterized Nigeria as the “epicenter of global terrorism,” a statement made without presenting supporting evidence. He subsequently called for foreign intervention in Nigeria to address what he framed as the Christian genocide: “If the Nigerian government cannot stop this, then the nations of the world must help stop it. Step in. Apply sanctions. Investigate. Speak out. This is not only a moral obligation—it is a matter of global security.”
Arnold actively engaged with “top Nigerian Christian influencers” to disseminate his narrative of a Christian genocide. He also suggested that he had lobbied internationally to ensure Nigeria would be subjected to extensive global scrutiny, stating: “Nigeria is about to be subject to the most intense international scrutiny that it has ever seen, and I encourage the leaders.” In his remarks, Arnold further implied political leverage, asserting that the incumbent president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, could only secure re-election by championing the cause he advocated: “I think the only way for him to survive is to become a champion for justice. That is the only way his power can survive.” He added, “I believe whoever champions the cause of IDPs will be the next president of Nigeria, and I will back that person with everything I’ve got if they are genuine about it.”
Moreover, Arnold issued warnings to those who might oppose or question his claims: “I’m not trying to unseat anybody. I’m trying to bring justice and peace to the nation I grew up knowing as my second home. I have not been involved in politics. Nigerian politics is only good if it works in the right direction. I will swing the sword of truth, and if you get in the way, you are going to get cut, like Omokri.” These statements reflect not only an activist orientation but also raise significant concerns regarding the intersection of advocacy, positionality, and potential influence on political processes, calling into question the neutrality and ethical grounding of his research conclusions.
Conclusion
Arnold’s research and documentary raise profound methodological, ethical, and positionality concerns that undercut the reliability of his claim of a Christian genocide in Nigeria. His selective focus on Christian communities, exclusion of heavily affected Muslim populations, and overlapping roles as researcher, NGO founder, and filmmaker establish conflicts of interest and indicate confirmation bias. Furthermore, his public advocacy and politicization of the findings compromise the objectivity expected in rigorous research. Given these issues, Arnold’s conclusions are not tenable. A credible assessment of violence in Nigeria would require comprehensive, unbiased data collection across all affected populations, ensuring ethical standards and balanced representation. Until such an inquiry is conducted, his claims should be treated with caution.
Dr Jubril Salaudeen
Secretary
Islamic Research Development, Lagos – Nigeria
Islamicresearchdevelopment@gmail.com
11/11/2025
