VDM Challenges Foreign Minister’s Claim on Terror Intelligence and Questions Government Credibility

Full Transcript

According to the Foreign Minister, Nigeria supplied intelligence that enabled U.S. strikes.

You had the intelligence. You had the locations. But you did nothing.

These same terrorists were kidnapping and raping Nigerians.

Does this explanation make sense?

If you had actionable intelligence, why did you not act?

Normally, U.S. strikes come with footage and confirmation.

Here, there is nothing.

Nigerians will not shut up.

Just tell the truth.

Peace and love. Don’t play.

On Intelligence Claims, Inaction, and the Demand for Truth

This response is directed to Nigeria’s Foreign Minister regarding public claims that Nigerian intelligence enabled foreign strikes on terrorist camps within Nigeria.

The Central Question

Addressed to 0: If the Nigerian government possessed actionable intelligence — locations, movements, and camps — why was no domestic action taken?

These are the same terrorist groups responsible for kidnappings, sexual violence, forced displacement, and the establishment of fortified camps with thousands of armed fighters.

Possessing intelligence without acting while citizens are slaughtered is not a defense. It is an admission of failure.

Why the Explanation Fails

The assertion that Nigeria supplied intelligence which then enabled a foreign strike raises unavoidable contradictions:

If intelligence was credible, why was it not acted upon domestically?
Why wait for a foreign power to do what Nigeria’s military should have done?
Why present this narrative only after reports surfaced?

This explanation reads as damage control — not disclosure.

The Alternative That Makes Sense

A more credible account would be simple and honest:

The United States acted independently
Nigeria was not informed beforehand
Authorities sought to prevent public panic
Officials are unwilling to admit loss of control or operational failure

That truth, while uncomfortable, would at least be coherent.

Where Is the Evidence?

Historically, when the U.S. conducts military strikes, evidence follows — drone footage, satellite imagery, strike confirmations, and intelligence trails.

Previous operations under 1 and 2 were accompanied by verification and global confirmation.

In this case, there is:

No footage
No confirmed locations
No post-strike evidence
No independent verification

Nigerians are not obligated to accept claims without proof.

A Refusal to Be Silenced

Calls for silence in the face of contradictions are rejected. Questioning authority in matters of national security is not noise — it is responsibility.

“Tell the truth. Nigerians can handle honesty better than confusion.”
Peace and love. Don’t play.

Statement Summary

This statement responds to claims by Nigeria’s Foreign Minister that intelligence supplied by Nigeria enabled U.S. strikes on terrorist camps. It questions the logic of possessing actionable intelligence without domestic action, challenges the absence of evidence, and calls out what appears to be post-event damage control rather than transparency.

The statement urges honesty, demands verifiable proof, and highlights the implications of admitting either prior knowledge without action or loss of territorial control.

Accountability & Verification Actions

Demand Verifiable Evidence
Require footage, locations, and independent confirmation of any alleged strike.
Clarify Intelligence Responsibility
Explain why actionable intelligence did not result in domestic military action.
Provide Transparent Briefings
Address the public with facts rather than post-hoc explanations.
Reassess National Security Capacity
Confront gaps that allow armed actors — foreign or terrorist — to operate undetected.