When faith crosses borders: Should Nigeria scrutinise foreign religious influence?

CAN religion become an instrument of political influence? The uncomfortable answer is yes. History shows that religion, like culture, education, diplomacy and commerce, can sometimes become part of a wider struggle for influence. That does not make religion inherently political, nor does it diminish the sincerity of millions of believers. But it does mean that Nigeria should be willing to ask difficult questions when foreign religious organisations establish or rapidly expand their presence within the country.

The question is particularly relevant as the Russian Orthodox Church expands its activities across Africa, including Nigeria.

In December 2021, the Russian Orthodox Church established the Patriarchal Exarchate of Africa after a dispute with the ancient Patriarchate of Alexandria over the latter’s recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The Moscow Patriarchate said the new structure initially received 102 African clergy and was given pastoral responsibility covering Nigeria and several other African countries.

Since then, the Exarchate has reported significant growth. Its own account says it has opened more than 200 parishes in 25 African countries. Recent reporting by Deutsche Welle has also highlighted the growing Russian Orthodox presence in Africa and analysts’ concerns that the expansion could serve as a form of Russian ideological soft power.

Nigeria is part of this story

Reports of Russian Orthodox activity in Benue State, including the development of parishes and church infrastructure, demonstrate that the expansion is not merely an abstract continental development. It is taking place within Nigerian communities.

But here is where caution is necessary. A significant difference exists between saying that a foreign church is expanding its religious mission and asserting that it is acting as an instrument of a foreign government. The former can be established through observable activity; the latter requires evidence.

The Russian Orthodox Church itself rejects the allegation that its African activities are designed to advance political or military objectives. In March 2026, the Patriarchal Exarch of Africa, Metropolitan Konstantin, insisted that the Church’s purpose in Africa is the preaching of the Orthodox faith and service to God and neighbour. He also stated that clergy are prohibited by Church rules from engaging in political activity.

That position deserves to be acknowledged.

Yet acknowledging it should not end the conversation.

Nigeria has a legitimate interest in understanding how foreign institutions operate within its territory, particularly when those institutions are linked organisationally to structures headquartered abroad. Transparency is not persecution. Scrutiny is not religious intolerance. Accountability is not an attack on faith.

Indeed, Nigeria’s Constitution provides that neither the Federal Government nor a state government shall adopt any religion as the state religion. That principle makes it even more important that religion should not become an unacknowledged pathway for foreign political influence.

This is not exclusively a Christian question.

Nigeria’s religious history demonstrates that faith traditions can cross national borders and, over time, become deeply embedded in local societies. Christianity and Islam are both historically external religious traditions that have become integral to Nigerian life. Millions of Nigerians practise them sincerely and regard them as central to their identity.

The issue, therefore, is not whether a religion originated outside Nigeria. The real question is: when does legitimate religious engagement become foreign influence, and when does foreign influence become political interference?

That distinction matters.

A foreign church may establish congregations, train clergy, provide humanitarian assistance and engage in theological education without threatening Nigeria’s sovereignty. Such activities should be protected where they comply with Nigerian law.

But if any religious institution—Christian, Muslim or otherwise—is used to cultivate political loyalties, manipulate public opinion, channel undisclosed foreign resources, influence elections or advance the strategic interests of another state, Nigerians have a right to know.

The same standard should apply to everyone.

Nigeria should therefore move beyond suspicion and adopt transparency. Foreign-linked religious organisations should be able to explain their sources of funding, institutional affiliations, leadership structures, major programmes and the nature of their relationships with foreign governments or state-linked institutions where such relationships exist.

This should not be designed to obstruct religious freedom. Rather, it would protect it.

History offers another warning. Whenever religious institutions become excessively entangled with political and economic power, the spiritual mission of religion itself can suffer. The European experience, including the political dominance of the medieval Church and the subsequent Reformation, illustrates the dangers of allowing religious authority and temporal power to become indistinguishable.

The lesson is not that religion must be excluded from public life. Religious leaders have an important role as the conscience of society. They should be free to challenge injustice, demand good governance, defend the vulnerable and speak truth to power.

But there is a difference between speaking truth to power and becoming an instrument of power.

That distinction is especially important in today’s geopolitical environment, where major powers increasingly compete for influence across Africa through diplomacy, security partnerships, business, culture, media and ideological networks. Religious institutions should not automatically be presumed guilty because they have foreign connections.

Neither should they be presumed above scrutiny because they operate under the banner of faith.

Nigeria can accommodate genuine religious partnerships while protecting its sovereignty.

The answer is neither suspicion of every foreign church nor blind acceptance of every religious initiative. It is transparency, accountability and consistent regulation.

The message should be simple: Nigeria welcomes faith, fellowship and legitimate religious partnership—but sovereignty cannot be outsourced under the cover of religion.

Protecting religious freedom requires protecting religion from political manipulation, just as protecting democracy requires protecting democratic institutions from foreign interference.

The goal is not to close Nigeria’s doors to the world. It is to ensure that whoever enters through those doors—religious, political, commercial or otherwise—is transparent about why they are here, what they are doing and whose interests they ultimately serve.