The Democracy Watch Initiative (DWI), on Wednesday, accused Amnesty International (AI) of fueling disunity in Nigeria through what it described as “unfounded, misleading and destabilising” reports on violent attacks across the country.

The group warned that Amnesty’s style of advocacy could encourage rebellion, leading to chaos, destruction, and authoritarian crackdowns, ultimately undermining the very human rights it claims to defend.

In a statement on Wednesday, by its Director of Strategic Communication, Dr. Tunji Bamidele, the group said AI’s recent claims of mass killings and abductions were inflated, mischievous and aimed at destabilising the country.

According to Amnesty International, at least 65 people were killed in recent attacks, including over 50 worshippers reportedly gunned down in Katsina and more than 15 farmers killed in Plateau State’s Mangu Local Government Area. The rights body also claimed that over 60 persons were abducted and more than 200 were displaced.

DWI dismissed the figures as exaggerated and mischievous, accusing Amnesty International of exploiting grievances in a manner that endangers national peace.

Bamidele said: “The report has the potential to illuminate injustices and inspire hope among the oppressed. However, when organisations like Amnesty International leverage this discontent irresponsibly, they risk igniting unrest and division.

“By amplifying grievances without substantiating claims, AI positions itself as a voice for the marginalised, yet its actions can lead to unintended consequences that fracture society rather than foster solidarity.

“At the core of Amnesty International’s strategy lies a troubling propensity to exploit societal rifts. By framing issues in a manner that pits communities against one another, AI cultivates an environment ripe for conflict.

“This approach raises significant ethical questions: Are the rights of some worth the discord inflicted upon the many? In a nation where unity is paramount for progress, AI’s methods appear counterproductive, fostering division rather than collaboration.

“While rebellion can be a legitimate response to oppression, the encouragement of such actions by organisations like Amnesty International can lead to chaos rather than constructive change.

“The romanticised notion of rebellion often overlooks the grim realities that accompany its loss of life, destruction of property, and the potential for authoritarian crackdowns. By advocating for rebellion without a clear understanding of the repercussions, AI jeopardises the very human rights it claims to defend.

“The ethical implications of Amnesty International’s approach are profound. On one hand, the organisation seeks to spotlight human rights abuses, which is commendable; on the other, its methods provoke a moral quandary.

“Is it justifiable to incite discontent if it leads to greater awareness of human rights violations? Or does the potential for chaos and violence negate the legitimacy of such actions? This dilemma underscores the complexities of advocacy in a world rife with injustice. While AI may believe it is acting in humanity’s best interest, the ramifications of its actions often complicate the narrative of progress.”

DWI maintained that constructive dialogue and understanding remain the best path to address grievances. “By prioritising communication over confrontation, advocates can work toward a more just society while preserving the peace essential for genuine progress.”

He called upon Amnesty International to reconsider its approach and engage in constructive dialogue that prioritizes unity and peace over discord and division.

He urged AI to recognise the complexities of the Nigerian context and to adopt strategies that promote healing and cooperation rather than exacerbating tensions.