When the Presidential Spokesman, Bayo Onanuga, announced that President Bola Tinubu had constituted an eleven‑man committee to develop a National Threat Assessment and a Strategic Defence Operations Plan within ninety days, several things struck me with about four months to the general elections even before I reached the substance of the directive.

The first was a detail so small it might ordinarily escape notice. The release identified Major General Adeyinka A. Famadewa, the Presidents Special Adviser on Homeland Security being tasked to coordinate the committee and provide secretariat support. His name appeared without the designation Rtd retired after his military rank. In routine communication, such an omission may be a harmless editorial slip. But in security communication, precision is not a luxury; it is a discipline.

The substance of the directive, however, is consequential. The President has mandated the committee to produce the plan that will establish medium‑term operational priorities by identifying force requirements, capability gaps, and equipment needs across all theatres.

The committees membership is composed of named individuals, not offices a significant distinction. It includes the National Security Adviser, Malam Nuhu Ribadu; the Minister of Defence, General Christopher Musa; the Minister of State for Defence, Alhaji Bello Muhammad Matawalle; the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede; the service chiefs; and the heads of the DSS and NIA. Naming individuals rather than offices removes the flexibility of substitution and attaches personal accountability to the mandate. That means the meeting with not be by representation or delegation.

Yet the composition raises legitimate questions the release did not address. The Inspector General of Police and the Chief of Defence Intelligence are absent. So are the heads of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and the Nigeria Immigration Service. Whether these omissions reflect a deliberate architectural choice or an oversight is unclear. But in a country where internal security, public order, and counter‑insurgency rely heavily on policing and civil defence structures, their absence is not a trivial matter.

The release cited a single operational event the rescue of pupils and teachers abducted in Oriire LGA of Oyo State as justification for the new initiative. The rescue was indeed commendable. But anchoring a national‑level defence planning directive on one successful southern operation inadvertently reinforces the asymmetry in how security successes across Nigerias regions are framed. Comparable and often larger rescue operations in the North‑East and North‑West from freeing abducted students to reclaiming communities from insurgents have received far less national attention.

Nigeria is not a country that lacks security strategy documents. If anything, it has produced them in abundance. The ninety‑day mandate would benefit from an honest reckoning with what already exists and what became of it.

In 2013, under President Goodluck Jonathan, Nigeria launched a comprehensive national security architecture built on three interconnected documents: the National Counter Terrorism Strategy (NACTEST), the National Security Strategy (NSS) and the National Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy.

NACTEST, initiated by NSA Colonel Sambo Dasuki (Rtd), rested on five pillars Forestall, Secure, Identify, Prepare, and Implement and mandated periodic reviews every five to ten years.

Under President Muhammadu Buhari, the Office of the National Security Adviser, led by Major General Babagana Monguno (Rtd), revised the framework of NACTEST and launched the National Crisis Management Doctrine (NCMD) in 2022. The NCMD translated broad policy directives into concrete crisis protocols, establishing standardised command structures, strategic communication channels, and escalation pathways for coordinated national response.

Under the current administration, the Office of the National Security Adviser unveiled the NCTC Strategic Plan 20252030, a five‑year roadmap for preventing and countering violent extremism built on intelligence fusion, inter‑agency collaboration, operational capacity building, and strategic communications. It was unveiled in November 2025 by Senate President Godswill Akpabio on behalf of President Tinubu, while NCTC Cordinator Major General Adamu Garba Laka represented Ribadu at the occasion.

The logical question the ninety‑day committee must answer before drafting a single page is simple: What is the relationship between its new mandate and the frameworks that already exist? Is the new Strategic Defence Operations Plan intended to replace NACTEST, the NCMD, and the NCTC Strategic Plan? Will it sit alongside them? Is it a military‑specific operational layer beneath the broader national security architecture? If so, how will coordination be ensured?

Onanugas release contains a paragraph that deserves particular attention. It states that once approved, the proposed plan would serve as the principal framework for coordinating military and defence operations over the medium term and would guide a multi‑year defence expenditure and procurement plan.

The emphasis on military and defence operations and spending rather than national security in the broader sense is telling. It may align with the committees composition, which is heavily weighted toward the armed services and intelligence agencies, and with the choice of a retired Major General Famadewa as coordinator rather than the NSA, whose remit covers the entire national security spectrum.

Ribadus background is in civilian law enforcement he retired as an Assistant Inspector General of Police before his distinguished career at the EFCC and in politics. His placement as a member rather than coordinator reflects a committee architecture that is primarily military in orientation. Whether this orientation is appropriate for Nigerias diverse security challenges from economic crime and banditry to coastal piracy and electoral violence is a legitimate question for scholars and policymakers.

The most consequential paragraph in the release is the one that received the least attention. It notes that the proposed framework will guide multi‑year defence expenditure, ensuring resources are directed toward agreed operational priorities. That is funding and funding is where seriousness is ultimately tested.

Nigeria has a long history of producing sophisticated security strategy documents that were quietly shelved once the budget cycle arrived and political priorities shifted. The question now is whether the new plan will emphasise expenditure more than operational efficiency and whether it will avoid becoming another well‑written document without practical impact.

A ninety‑day planning exercise can produce a credible framework, but it must be backed by a realistic, legislatively supported multi‑year funding commitment. It should not demand excessive new spending, especially at a time when the country continues to borrow heavily for major capital projects.

In the concluding paragraph of the release, the President tasked not individual officers but the Office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (OSGF) and the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) to give immediate effect to the directive. Their compliance and the quality of output from the committees named members will define the next ninety days.

With the general election approaching, the ninety days will tell us much, while the budget will tell us the rest.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “MNI Versus MNIPR in NIPSS- Tackling institutional Bullying” yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Famadewa, Ribadu and 90-Day Security Plan: Unpacking Onanuga’s Release- YAShuaib appeared first on YAShuaib.

When U.S. President Donald Trump recently renewed his fixation with what he described as “Christian genocide” in Nigeriagoing as far as calling the country a “disgraced nation”I couldn’t help but laugh. Not because Nigeria’s security challenges are trivial, but because Trump’s history of loud, reckless, and contradictory outbursts makes it difficult for any serious observer to take him at face value.

This is the same Trump who, during his first tenure, described Nigeria among African “shithole countries” and labelled then-President Muhammadu Buhari as “lifeless.” He once confronted Buhari with the question, “Why are you killing Christians?”, despite being widely known for superficial engagement with facts. No American leader in modern times has displayed Trump’s blend of theatrical tantrums, political sensationalism, and Hollywood-style dramatics.

Trump’s behaviour is often stranger than fiction. Before the New York mayoral election, he repeatedly attacked Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim politician of South Asian descent born in Uganda, Africa, calling him a “communist” and threatening to punish New York City if he won. Trump vowed to slash federal funding, deploy the National Guard, and even suggested arresting him over immigration disagreements. Yet despite Trump’s intimidation, Mamdani wonproof that Trump’s political threats often collapse under their own emptiness.

His track record is replete with contradictions. He loudly condemns alleged “Islamists” in Nigeria yet openly courted controversial figures abroadincluding a former “terrorist leader” turned Syrian president, Ahmed al-Sharaa meeting him both in Saudi Arabia and at the White House. Despite presenting himself as a defender of persecuted Christians, Trump’s positions are dictated more by political theatre and personal interests than principle.

He once peddled a fabricated narrative of “white genocide” in South Africa, later dismissed by experts as propaganda. For someone whose policies contributed to the Gaza Genocide against Palestinians and whose rhetoric often inflames divisions, it is astonishing that some Nigerians still treat his statements as gospel truth.

Yet, certain political actors and ethnic propagandists celebrated Trump’s threat to “invade Nigeria,” as though foreign military intervention were a badge of honour. Thankfully, prominent Christian voicesespecially officials from the Middle Belt, including Benue State Governor Reverend Father Hyacinth Alia and Secretary to the Government of the Federation Senator George Akume, as well as vocal public commentators from Southern Nigeria such as Femi Fani-Kayode and Reno Omokrifirmly rejected the genocide narrative, affirming that violence in Nigeria affects Muslims and Christians alike.

Ironically, when Muslims attempted to counter the propaganda, some were accused of never condemning terrorism. But truth is not built on emotion. As a Muslim my writings over two decadesincluding 2003’s “Sharia: Between Civilisation and Belief,” 2006’s “Killing in the Name of the Devil,” 2012’s “Boko Haram and Political Elites in Northern Nigeria,” and 2018’s “Still on Murderous Fulani Kidnappers,” among othersdemonstrate consistent condemnation of all violent crimes, irrespective of perpetrators’ religion or region. My blog, www.yashuaib.com, further archives these personal opinion articles. Not everyone is a hypocrite. Some of us speak from conviction, not convenience.

Security as well as investigative media reports reveal that the so-called “Christian genocide” narrative was constructed mainly by disgruntled Middle Belt activists, IPOB sympathisers, and foreign lobby groups disguised as NGOs. While some Christian communities document every casualty, Muslim communitieswho have suffered the brunt of Boko Haram, banditry and state violence such as the 2016 Zaria Shiite massacrerarely do so. Terrorists have ravaged entire Muslim-majority towns in the North, but their tragedies lack global amplification because they do not fit a convenient foreign narrative.

President Bola Ahmed Tinubu acted maturely by dispatching a delegation led by National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu to engage U.S. authorities. Observers noted that the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun and Chief of Defence Intelligence, Lt General Emmanuel Parker Undiandeye all Christianswere on that delegation. If there were a coordinated genocide against Christians, would these respected top security chiefs be complicit?

After every engagement involving Nigeria’s delegationincluding Attorney General Lateef Fagbemi and Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Bianca Ojukwu, with American authorities, deeply irresponsible official statements followed. Freshman U.S. Congressman Riley Moore mentioned “Christians” eight times without acknowledging Muslims who are also terrorism victims. Similarly, U.S. Secretary of Defence/War Pete Hegseth’s office emphasised “protection of Christians” and “stopping violence against Christians in Nigeria.”

What about other Nigerians who suffer the same violence? What is the agenda behind this selective framing? Are Muslims and other communities expected to remain silent in the face of such reckless rhetoric? This one-sided narrative sends a troubling messageas though Muslim lives do not matter in the scheme to undermine Nigeria. Even more unfortunate is that some Nigerians are celebrating this distortion, as if the rest of us are no longer their brothers and sisters in nationhood.

Meanwhile, as Ribadu’s delegation sought to clarify Nigeria’s secular stance in the USA, Trump welcomed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House. He approved a major defence pact, facilitated F-35 jet sales, and celebrated investment commitments worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Saudi Arabiathe spiritual heart of global Islamwas also designated a major U.S. ally, while Nigeria was labelled a “country of concern.” Trump’s selective morality is guided not by religious solidarity but by strategic and financial interests.

This makes one thing clear: Nigeria must resist being drawn into emotional propaganda. Americans, as responsible people, will never sanction the invasion of Nigeria over flimsy and concocted excuses as if we are a banana republic. Trump’s threats are mere bluster. The real danger lies in foreign-funded lobbyistsboth locally and internationallydriving the genocide narrative. Once Nigeria ceases to trend, they will shift their campaign elsewhere.

It would not be surprising if, realising that Trump is not coming, the so-called Christian genocide claimants may turn to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with claims that Jews are persecuted in Nigeria. Such a scenario would be absurd, yet not impossibleeven though the most vocal self-proclaimed “Nigerian Jew” is currently serving a terrorism sentence in Sokoto.

Nigeria’s security crises are real but not religious genocide. They stem from criminality, governance failures, climate pressure and economic distressnot state persecution.

Nigeria must confront these challenges honestly, rejecting foreign labels designed to fracture our unity.

The question remains: Is Trump protecting Nigerian Christiansor his own political and business interests, often in competition with China?

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of “An Encounter with the Spymaster.” yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Genocide Claim: President Trump, Ribadu’s Team and the Saudi Prince appeared first on YAShuaib.

A recent debate has reignited an enduring ethical dilemma in media circles: what should or should not be published?

By its very nature, journalism thrives on controversy, and many media outlets consider sensitive or even classified information the holy grail, often labelling it as Breaking News or exclusive investigative reporting. However, communication scholars and public relations professionals have long advocated for responsible journalismespecially when national interests are at stakethrough dialogue, discretion, and, in some cases, confidentiality.

There are indeed circumstances where a better understanding between the media and security services is crucial, particularly when the information in question has the potential to endanger lives or undermine national stability. I have both witnessed and facilitated engagements where critical institutions found it necessary to confidentially brief trusted and responsible editors on highly sensitive matterswhether relating to security operations or economic stability.

I recall such instances vividly during the era of Mr. Femi Adesina as President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) and Major General Chris Olukolade as Chairman of the Forum of Spokespersons of Security and Response Agencies (FOSSRA). As Editor-in-Chief of The Sun Newspapers and Director of Defence Information, respectively, they led frank, transparent, and impactful sessions where editors were shown visual and documentary evidence of national security challenges. Some editors were visibly shakensome even shed tearsat the disturbing footage of atrocities committed by terrorists. At other times, they celebrated triumphs of the Nigerian military with equal emotion. Yet, not once was such sensitive information leaked or published in breach of trust.

Today, the current National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, similarly acknowledges the strategic role of the media and encourages security chiefs to engage top editors in private, interactive sessions.

In such sessions, the editors have been discreetly briefedoften with graphic evidenceon successful counterterrorism operations and the ultimate sacrifices of fallen troops. The meetings underscore the essential bond of trust between the media and security institutions.

Meanwhile, these engagements are often conducted under mutually agreed-upon conditionseither off the record, under the Chatham House Rules, or with a confidentiality clause. These protocols help maintain the delicate balance between press freedom and national security.

To clarify: when a conversation is off the record, the information shared is not to be published or attributed under any circumstances. The Chatham House Rule permits the use of shared information but forbids identifying speakers or their affiliations. Unfortunately, even senior officials sometimes fail to understand these distinctions.

A confidentiality clause, in more formal terms, is a legal agreement that prohibits the disclosure of certain information. Journalists, as custodians of public trust, are often expected to protect confidential sources and sensitive information.

That is why the recent suspension of veteran editor Steve Osuji by the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) has sparked significant concern. Osuji was suspended for one year for allegedly breaching the off the record rule by publishing an article based on a keynote address delivered by the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS), Mr. Adeola Oluwatosin Ajayi, at the NGEs 25th Biennial National Convention in Enugu.

According to Eze Anaba, the President of NGE, there was a clear understanding that the DGs address was not to be made public. Nevertheless, Osuji reportedly published content from the session on his social media handles. The NGE apologised to the DSS and its DG for the breach and reiterated its commitment to ethical standards, while allowing Osuji the right to appeal the decision.

Though the Revised Code of Ethics for Nigerian Journalists (2022)dealing with Sources/Privilege/Non-Disclosuredoes not mention off the record explicitly, it affirms the universally accepted principle of confidentiality in journalism.

In response, Osuji challenged the NGE’s decision, stating that DSS operatives had allowed journalists to attend and that a compre only announced the address as confidential after it had commenced. Expressing concern over what he called unprecedented gagging, he published an article questioning the DSSs approach and broader issues around insecurity. When asked by an NGE executive to delete the article, Osuji refused, claiming national security must be questioned when necessary. He accused the Guild of allowing the convention to be hijacked and declared that he would rather be suspended than remain part of what he called an efulefu Guild, which, in his view, had failed in its watchdog role.

In fairness to all partiesespecially the DG DSS and the editorsthe matter could have been resolved internally, with dialogue rather than disciplinary action. If anything, the DG DSS has shown professionalism and restraint in his conduct and approach to media relations since his appointment about two years ago. He has also emphasised due process, discouraged arbitrary arrests, and encouraged transparency, even allowing other agencies to take credit for joint successes.

While the DSS may not publicly outline its communication policy, its leadership has repeatedly demonstrated an intention to build mutual trust with media stakeholders. Private editor briefings, such as the one in Enugu, are intended to foster understanding, not confrontation. The aim is to offer highly sensitive, sometimes exclusive, briefings to responsible media professionals who appreciate the gravity of the information shared.

This culture of behind-the-scenes media engagement dates back to the administration of President Goodluck Jonathan, when then-NSA Sambo Dasuki supported media-security cooperation. Under his directive, editors were shown live video footage of terrorist atrocities and strategic military preparationsso they could responsibly shape their reporting and avoid unnecessary public panic.

While I wish my senior colleague had taken down the article in the national interest when requested, I believe a one-year suspension is overly harsh. I hope this issue can still be resolved amicably. Our security services are becoming more professional and collaborative with members of the Fourth Estate. They needand deserveconstructive support.

Finally, for any engagement that requires confidentiality, all parties must be informed beforehand about the terms: whether it is off the record, under the Chatham House Rules, or subject to a confidentiality clause. These distinctions matter, not just for ethics, but for the integrity of public discourse and national security.

Yushau A. Shuaib is the author of Award-Winning Crisis Communication Strategies. yashuaib@yashuaib.com

The post Security Chiefs, Editors, ‘Off-the-Record’ and Other Confidential Rules appeared first on YAShuaib.

Before the publication, he has always been as controversial as his physique and high positions he held. His enigmatic disposition is reflective in his outbursts and battles at various stages of his life.

In over 20 years of syndicated opinion writings, this writer had causes to write to, and on el-Rufai, as an arrow-head of the government in attempts to question some of his controversial policies and decisions. Some of the articles where his name appeared in the titles include: “el Rufai: From Privatization to Demolition,” “Memo to el-Rufai on Monetisation of Government Houses,” “Six el-Rufai in Mummy’s Shop,” and “Between el Rufai, Ribadu and Yar’Adua.”

It was obvious that, to some extent he was tolerant to some of the constructive criticisms going subsequent actions he took and occasional responses. His Special Assistant, Dr. Abdu Mukhtar once issued a lengthy rejoinder to my criticism of the Monetisation policy, clearly stating government position and how it could benefit the civil servants at the end.

My close contact with him came when I was nominated by his office to be the Chief Rapporteur and Leader of the Rapportorial Team of the International Conference on Abuja @30 Celebration in 2006. At a close range, el Rufai is a jolly fellow. He related seamlessly with all officials at the weeklong event. Though his style as an administrator could defer from what would be expected from typical Nigerian politicians and top civil servants, he was focused on the assigned targets, especially on the restoration of Abuja Master plan, the monetization policy concerning government houses, the initial public service reform among others would remain indelible hallmarks of el Rufai’s time in government.

From the PR practitioner’s perspective, Nasir el Rufai is a difficult brand to manage. He strongly believes in the power of his voice no matter what others would say. He admitted this in his book when he wrote that “certain people hold the opinion that I am feisty, argumentative and antagonistic- ….I just believe in being honest with myself and with others and in speaking my mind frankly..”

While it was difficult to recall his open criticism or opinion on the ‘Third Term’ agenda of President Olusegun Obasanjo as clearly demonstrated then by Vice President Atiku Abubakar, el Rufai narrated his behind the scene campaigns against the project in association with other members of the then Economic Management Team, which included Nuhu Ribadu, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and Oby Ezekwesili. One of his direct confrontations angered President Obasanjo who retorted: “I am looking forward to May 29, 2007 to go back to my farm.” At another instance Obasanjo had to refer to el Rufai as “coup plotter” for secretly leading others against the Third Term Agenda after a consultation with Gen. Abdullahi Mohammed, the Chief of Staff.

Although it is difficult to determine from the book if el Rufai nursed the ambition to replace Obj/Atiku after their second term in 2007, it is clear that he was very bitter over the failure of Obasanjo to groom a successor. He said in the book: “The fact that Obasanjo did not even explore the idea of grooming a suitable successor speaks of the depths of his delusion… he deprived the ordinary Nigerian of that luxury of making a real choice.”

While he publicly supported the emergence of Umar Musa Yar’Adua and Goodluck Jonathan as presidential and Vice presidential candidates of the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP), he nevertheless writes in his book: “Yar’Adua and his deputy, Goodluck Jonathan emerged for no other discernible reasons than being weak governors sympathetic to the Third Term project and therefore, handpicked as paypack.”

Notwithstanding his scathing criticisms of his boss, it is obvious from the book that el Rufai retains some kind impressions about Obasanjo when he said “In spite of all these deficits, President Obasanjo is an intelligent, hardworking, dedicated and competent leader. I consider my experiences working with him, one of the pinnacles of my public service career.”

Dwelling on his sojourn at the BPE, el Rufai justifies his recruitment policy of favouring friends, associate and first class graduates on the ground that he knew their capabilities. While debunking the allegations of paying a youth corps member, Aishetu Fatima Kolo N2 million per month, he justifies his realistic salaries for staff in BPE as means of fighting corruption due to temptation of office with supports from some multilateral institutions like World Bank and DFID.

The book unveils a lot of financial scandals and corrupt practices involving individuals in high places from the public and private sectors, especially during the privatisation process. El Rufai narrates how one Nessim Gaon, a Swiss-Jew who was awarded $320million contract to build Nicon-Noga Hilton in Abuja manoeuvred himself to become a shareholder in the hotel. The project, according to el Rufai should not have cost $120million in the estimation of a quantity surveying firm, yet the same contractor without injecting any fund into the hotel claimed to be a 25% shareholder in the ownership under a very questionable management contract executed with NICON Insurance. El Rufai ensured the man lost the controversial shareholding after consulting Vice President Atiku Abubakar as Chairman of National Privatisation Council who approved that Hilton became a 100%- owned asset of the Government.

Another hanky-panky he exposed was his alleged rejection of N25,000,000 and $100,000 cash as a ‘thank you’ gift from Mike Adenuga after the sale of the National Oil (Nolchem) to his (Adenuga’s) Conpetro. When the courier of the bribery, a named staff of BPE was reprimanded by Elrufai with a threat to report him to NCP, the staff replied that the Chairman of the Council (VP Atiku) had been informed by Adenuga on the ‘Naira-Dollars’ gift.

El Rufai writes that he immediately went to Atiku to accuse him of complicity. A surprised Atiku immediately put a speaker phone call to Adenuga and asked: “Did we ever discuss Nasir Elrufai with you and what did I say?” Adenuga replied: “Yes sir. You told me he is a straightforward person and that I should not try to give him any money or try to thank him in any way.”

 This book review by Yushau A. Shuaib has been published in the print edition of Economic Confidential, Thisday, Guardian, Punch, Vanguard, National Mirror, Nigerian Tribune, People’s Daily, Blueprint, Daily Trust and the Sun in April 2013

To be continued in PartII

The post On El-rufai and His Accidental Book appeared first on YAShuaib.