“New York Times Lied Against Us,” Says Nigerian Rights Group

By Naija Enquirer Staff

The International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) has accused the New York Times of misrepresentation and endangering its leadership following a report that linked the organisation’s research to recent United States airstrikes in northern Nigeria.

“At no point during our interaction with the New York Times did we say or imply many of the things now attributed to us. What has been published is a gross misrepresentation of our position and a dangerous distortion of our work,” the group said in a statement.

The human rights organisation, in a strongly worded statement issued in Onitsha, eastern Nigeria, on Monday, accused the US newspaper of “deliberate falsehoods, misquotations and injurious framing” following an interview conducted more than a month earlier with its leader.

The New York Times report, published on Sunday, January 18, 2026, was written by the paper’s West Africa bureau chief, Ruth Maclean.

Disputed Link to US Airstrikes

Intersociety said its principal objection centres on what it described as an attempt by the report to link its December interview with US airstrikes carried out in Sokoto State on Christmas Day, nine days later.

According to the group, it was neither consulted nor informed that its interview would be framed in connection with the military operation, which Nigerian and US authorities later described publicly as a coordinated action.

“We cannot understand why an interview conducted on 16 December was framed as having influenced airstrikes carried out on 25 December, which were officially acknowledged by both governments,” the statement said.

The organisation warned that such reporting could expose its leadership and offices to risk.

“We hereby place the world on notice that we hold the New York Times and its West African bureau chief vicariously liable should anything untoward happen to our leader, his family or our offices,” it added.

Background to the Interview

According to Intersociety, the interview took place on December 16, 2025, at the residence of its founder and executive director, Emeka Umeagbalasi, in Onitsha.

The organisation said Ms Maclean was accompanied by a photographer from Kwara State and a Nigerian journalist, Dave Eleke of ThisDay newspaper.

It said the meeting, which was approved by its board, lasted more than three hours and was followed by a photographic session at a local market.

Intersociety rejected what it described as attempts in the report to diminish or ridicule its leader’s background, stating that Mr Umeagbalasi is a trained criminologist with postgraduate qualifications in criminology, security studies, peace studies and conflict resolution, and is also a business owner in Onitsha.

“Shocked and Disappointed”

The group said it was “shocked and totally disappointed” by the published report, insisting that several statements attributed to its leadership were never made.

It denied any involvement in US domestic politics and rejected suggestions that its work was aligned with partisan debates in Washington.

“Our work has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats or American culture wars,” the statement said, adding that freedom of religion is a universal right applicable to all faiths.

Intersociety reaffirmed its long-standing figures, claiming that since 2009 an estimated 125,000 Christians and 60,000 Muslims have been killed outside the protection of religious freedom in Nigeria, alongside more than 19,000 attacks on churches.

The organisation also challenged claims in the New York Times report regarding its research methods, denying any admission that its data was unverified.

It said it conducts both primary and secondary research, including field investigations in areas such as southern Kaduna, Taraba State, the South-East and South-South regions, with recent work in Enugu State.

Intersociety added that where access is restricted, it relies on credible third-party reports, in line with United Nations and African Union documentation standards.

“We are a human rights monitoring organisation, not a media house,” the statement said.

Dispute Over Boko Haram Victims

The group also rejected claims attributed to it concerning the religious identity of Boko Haram victims.

It said that between 2009 and 2017, Christians constituted a majority of those killed, citing figures from the Church of the Brethren in Nigeria, which reported that 8,600 of its members were killed between 2014 and 2020.

Intersociety also referenced the 2014 abduction of schoolgirls from Chibok, stating that more than 200 of the victims were members of the same church.

Kebbi Abductions and Fulani Remarks

Addressing reporting on school abductions in Kebbi State, the organisation said it never claimed that “many” of the abducted students were Christians, but expressed suspicion that some could have been, based on the school’s profile and local demographics.

It also denied allegations that it described Fulani people as animals or advocated their confinement to a single state.

The group said its remarks on ranching policy were hypothetical and intended to illustrate how livestock development could be managed without extremist intent.

Wider Public Reaction

The controversy has generated strong reactions online and among commentators.

Writer Charles Ogbu described the New York Times report as an attempt to shift blame for the Sokoto airstrikes onto an individual from south-eastern Nigeria, despite public acknowledgements by Nigerian officials that the operation was a joint effort with the United States.

Political analyst Ebuka Onyekwelu questioned the report’s emphasis on Mr Umeagbalasi’s personal background rather than the substance of Intersociety’s work.

“What does his height or private business have to do with the credibility of human rights data?” he asked, arguing that the framing risked undermining legitimate civil society research in the absence of credible government data.

Call for Accountability

Intersociety said it remained open to informed criticism of its work but insisted that misquotation and misleading attribution undermine both journalism and human rights advocacy.

As at the time of publication, the New York Times had not publicly responded to the allegations.