A leading Nigerian civil rights advocate has criticised the New York Times over what he described as a misrepresentation of comments attributed to his organisation regarding data verification on religiously motivated killings in Nigeria.
Speaking on Monday during an interview on Prime Time, a programme aired on Prime Time on Arise Television, civil rights activist Emeka Umeagbalasi said the newspaper wrongly reported that his organisation admitted it does not regularly verify its data.
Umeagbalasi, who is the Executive Director of Intersociety (International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law), rejected the claim in strong terms, insisting that it does not reflect what was communicated during interactions with the American newspaper.
Dispute Over Data Verification
According to Umeagbalasi, the assertion attributed to his organisation by the New York Times is “totally incorrect” and undermines the credibility of Intersociety’s work.
“With due respect, the New York Times didn’t do any investigation. They said we admitted that we don’t often verify our data. That is not what we told them,” he said during the interview.
He questioned the logic of granting an interview to an international media organisation if the data being discussed had not been verified, arguing that verification is central to the group’s research methodology.
Umeagbalasi further accused the newspaper of being “economical with the truth,” suggesting that the publication failed to present his organisation’s findings in their full and proper context.
Clarifying the Data on Religious Violence
A central point of contention is the interpretation of figures relating to killings linked to religious extremism in Nigeria. Umeagbalasi explained that Intersociety’s data focuses specifically on religiously motivated violence, not on general insecurity figures released by government agencies.
He stated that Intersociety’s report estimates that between 2009 and 2025, no fewer than 125,000 Christians and about 60,000 Muslims were killed by Islamic jihadist groups. He emphasised that the report also affirms that both Christians and Muslims enjoy constitutional religious freedom in Nigeria, countering suggestions of one-sided victimhood.
The activist was careful to distinguish his organisation’s figures from those attributed to the National Bureau of Statistics, which reportedly estimated that hundreds of thousands of Nigerians were killed due to insecurity between 2023 and 2024. According to him, those figures relate to broader criminal violence and should not be conflated with religiously motivated killings.
“That is not the data we are talking about,” he said. “We are talking about religiously motivated killing. That is our own data.”
Methodology and Criminal Justice Context
Umeagbalasi, who described himself as a criminologist, defended Intersociety’s approach to data collection, arguing that criminal justice systems worldwide rely heavily on circumstantial and testimonial evidence.
He noted that investigators are rarely eyewitnesses to crimes and must instead reconstruct events based on accounts from victims, witnesses, communities, and available records. In his view, dismissing such methods misunderstands how criminal justice and human rights documentation function globally.
“You can never be part of a data you never generated,” he said, adding that visiting a crime scene often involves being told what happened after the fact, rather than observing the crime directly.
Broader Context and Sensitivities
The exchange highlights the sensitivity surrounding data on violence in Nigeria, particularly when international media and advocacy groups engage with the issue. Reports on religious violence, banditry, and terrorism often influence global perception, diplomatic engagement, and policy responses toward Nigeria.
Disagreements over figures and methodology can therefore carry implications beyond academic debate, affecting public trust, international advocacy, and domestic discourse on security and religious coexistence.
Key Implications
The dispute raises several important considerations:
- Media Accountability: International media organisations face scrutiny over how they interpret and present data from local civil society groups.
- Data Transparency: Clear distinctions between different categories of violence are essential to avoid misleading conclusions.
- Human Rights Advocacy: Disagreements over figures may affect how advocacy reports are received by policymakers and the global community.
- Public Trust: Conflicting narratives risk confusing the public and weakening confidence in both media reporting and civil society data.
What Happens Next
Neither the New York Times nor Intersociety has indicated whether further clarification or engagement will follow. However, the comments by Umeagbalasi are likely to prompt renewed scrutiny of how international outlets report on Nigerian security issues and the sources they rely on.
As debates over insecurity, religious freedom, and data credibility continue, the episode underscores the importance of accuracy, context, and transparency in reporting on one of Nigeria’s most complex challenges.
Source: Interview with Emeka Umeagbalasi on Prime Time, Arise Television; statements monitored by DAILY POST.
Related: Defence Minister Warns Gumi, Others Against Supporting Bandits
