As Nigeria’s domestic politics intensify ahead of the 2027 elections, a quiet yet consequential tug-of-war is unfolding in the corridors of Washington, DC. While Biafran independence activists openly wage a campaign to cast Nigeria’s security challenges as a Christian genocide, new reporting and sources told Huhuonline.com that President Bola Tinubu’s government is quietly mounting its own counter-lobby in the United States; signaling a high-stakes battle for narrative control on the global stage. “If Biafra lobbyists succeed in obtaining congressional backing for sanctions or restrictive designations, they would weaponize the US foreign policy apparatus against Nigeria. For Tinubu, that would translate into additional international pressure on his security forces, diplomatic isolation, and credibility damage,” one diplomatic source told Huhuonline.com.

Huhuonline.com has learned that over the past year, the Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE), led by Simon Ekpa, contracted US lobbying firm Moran Global Strategies (MGS), helmed by former US congressman Jim Moran, to advance its separatist agenda. Multiple US Congressional sources confirmed to Huhuonline.com that BRGIE and MGS have fed US Republicans, including Senator Ted Cruz, data and testimonies depicting alleged massacres of Christian communities in Nigeria. Cruz’s “Nigeria Religious Freedom Accountability Act” bears the fingerprints of this narrative. The bill accuses Nigeria of mass murders, seeks to sanction security officials, and recommends reclassifying Nigeria as a “Country of Particular Concern.” Public materials, including a Biafra “referendum” dossier (claiming over 50 million participants), have been submitted to US regulatory filings under FARA to shape perception. But this narrative push carries obvious danger: once accepted in US policymaking circles, such framing can attract sanctions, humanitarian interventions, or diplomatic pressure.

Facing this mounting assault on Nigeria’s image, the presidency has not stayed idle. In January 2025, a media expose claimed President Tinubu’s team engaged multiple US lobbyists and PR firms – reporting a $2.7 million outlay, to rehabilitate his image in Washington after scandals over certificate irregularities and drug allegations. The contract was said to include Lenape Legal (David Spaulding) among others. According to that report, some of these contracts were signed under the label of the “Government of Nigeria,” possibly to mask personal involvement. If true, this suggests that Tinubu’s team judges that the Biafra-Cruz narrative threat is severe enough to deploy heavy US influence machinery.

The Nigerian government has repeatedly denied “Christian genocide” accusations. Foreign Minister and Information Ministry have characterized them as false, politically motivated smears. Diplomatically, Nigeria has signaled readiness to counter these claims through diplomatic channels and perhaps by engaging its own Washington-based advocates. Thus, Tinubu’s response appears dual: public pushback and private influence operations. Tinubu’s pivot to Washington lobbying, suggests he recognizes the external battleground of narrative control. The fight is no longer confined to Abuja; it now spans Capitol Hill, the State Department, and US media.

A niggling problem is opacity: US law requires lobbyists working for foreign principals to register under FARA. But if Nigeria’s contracts are channeled via shell entities or labeled “image management,” true accountability becomes elusive. The possibility of undisclosed influence peddling looms. Within Nigeria, these Washington skirmishes reinforce a message: that Tinubu is playing a global chess game, not just a national one. Opposition voices may interpret it as diversion from pressing governance issues. Yet, the presidency may argue that safeguarding Nigeria’s image and sovereignty against external narratives is itself a national duty.

This unfolding Washington drama reveals something deeper about the politics of reputation and power. For decades, external narratives have shaped Nigeria’s diplomatic standing. Increasingly, Nigeria and its presidency, appear determined to contest those stories in foreign capitals. If Tinubu orchestrated a counter-lobby, he signals that he sees more than local critics – he sees international influence forces as frontline opponents. That is bold. But it is also dangerous. Because reputation warfare in Washington is a game of shadows: one in which opacity, hidden incentives, and rumor can kill credibility faster than open confrontation. Nigeria deserves to push back against fringe separatist narratives. But that push must be transparent, lawful, and credible – not concealed behind shadow firms. Otherwise, in trying to reclaim the narrative, Tinubu risks becoming a protagonist in the very story he deplores: a presidency battling global perception before solving domestic governance.