Over time, I have consistently defended the right of people to define and assert their identity, including those who identify strongly as Hausa and seek full recognition of that identity. That position has not changed.
As the conversation continues, however, it is important to introduce another dimension, not to settle the debate or undermine any legitimate aspiration, but to deepen our collective understanding.
That dimension is science.
And I say this both as a participant in the discussion and as a molecular biologist.
Modern genetics allows us to examine human history through DNA, not to define people rigidly, but to reconstruct patterns of ancestry, movement, and interaction over time.
Across West Africa, including Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani, and others, the evidence consistently points to populations that are structured yet deeply interconnected. These groups did not evolve in isolation; they were shaped by continuous gene flow, mobility, and long-standing social exchange.
This is particularly true of the Sahel, where Hausa identity is historically rooted. For centuries, it has served as a corridor for trade, scholarship, settlement, and state formation. It is therefore unsurprising that the biological record reflects this same continuity of interaction.
So when it is said that Hausa is “just a language,” science does not support that simplification.
But neither does science reduce identity to a fixed or isolated genetic category. The reality is layered, and that complexity does not weaken identity; it gives it depth.
Available studies that include Hausa populations point to diverse paternal lineages linked to wider Sahelian and trans-Saharan histories, alongside broadly shared maternal ancestry across Nigerian populations.
These patterns are consistent with long-term interaction rather than isolation.
A plausible genome-wide profile, based on known patterns in Sahelian and Fulani-associated populations, would reflect a dominant West African genetic core, with additional layers of Fulani-associated ancestry and smaller contributions from East or Northeast African and North African interactions over time.
Even at the individual level, genetic ancestry does not always align neatly with outward appearance.
In my own case, despite this overwhelmingly African genetic background, my lighter skin tone and certain facial features often lead people, especially in East Africa, to assume I am of Ethiopian origin. This is not unusual. In fact, many light-skinned Northern Nigerians, whether Hausa or Fulani, may have similar experiences. What we see on the surface is shaped by only a small fraction of our genes, and those visible traits can vary widely even among people who share broadly similar ancestry. Identity, therefore, cannot be read directly from appearance.
However, an important caveat remains: we still do not know enough.
If we are precise, the number of studies that directly examine Hausa populations (or indeed most Nigerian people) at meaningful genomic resolution is very limited, likely fewer than a dozen, most with constrained sample sizes and scope. This is insufficient to support definitive claims about origin, purity, or strict biological boundaries.
And that is where the real opportunity lies.
Because this is not only about identity, it is also about health, science, and the future.
Looking ahead, there is a clear opportunity at the intersection of science and enterprise.
This is an area that, as a molecular biologist, I find both scientifically compelling and strategically important, with clear pathways for future initiatives.
Without a robust understanding of our own genetic diversity, we limit our ability to improve diagnosis, develop effective treatments, and build precision medicine systems suited to our populations. We also remain dependent on external datasets that do not fully reflect our realities.
Genomics extends further still. It allows us to study pathogens, microbial ecosystems, and disease dynamics, strengthening epidemic preparedness and public health systems. In this sense, it is part of a broader systems evolution linking biology, policy, and society.
Even in moments of tension, therefore, there is opportunity. Instead of narrowing the discussion to competing claims, we can ask a more productive question: what knowledge are we missing, and how do we generate it ourselves?
This is where science becomes a tool for nation-building.
A structured genomics initiative, whether national or population-focused, would not only deepen our understanding of identity but also strengthen healthcare, build scientific capacity, and support more inclusive and evidence-based policies.
It aligns with broader efforts to design institutions that recognise people in all their complexity.
In the end, identity cannot be reduced to a single dimension, neither language, nor culture, nor DNA. It is a living system shaped over time.
Science does not replace that system. It helps us understand it more clearly.
And bringing science into this conversation is not about weakening any struggle. It is about strengthening it by grounding it in deeper knowledge and expanding the horizon of what we can collectively achieve.
Because we are not isolated groups arguing over definitions. We are part of a larger, evolving story, one we still have the opportunity to understand, shape, and improve.
Dr Ibrahim, science, technology and innovation expert, writes from Kano (biorazi@gmail.com)
