Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, a human rights lawyer and lead counsel to the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has sharply criticised the President Bola Tinubu–led Federal Government over what he described as contradictory and humiliating claims surrounding the recent United States military airstrike in Sokoto State.
Ejimakor’s criticism followed widely circulated reports, credited to The New York Times, which suggested that the Nigerian government had reversed its earlier position on the intelligence that led to the operation. According to the reports, the government allegedly shifted responsibility to an Onitsha-based “screwdriver” trader and Catholic activist, Emeka Umeagbalasi, who is also the founder of the International Society for Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law (Intersociety), accusing him of spreading unverified claims of Christian genocide in Nigeria that supposedly triggered the U.S. strike.
This narrative contrasts sharply with the government’s initial stance, in which it publicly took credit for providing actionable intelligence and collaborating with the United States in carrying out the December 2025 military operation in Sokoto State.
Reacting to the development, Ejimakor condemned the government for what he called a glaring inconsistency in its account of events, arguing that the shifting explanations amounted to a national embarrassment. He expressed concern that the authorities first presented themselves as key partners in the intelligence operation, only to later distance themselves by attributing the information to a private individual.
In a post on his X (formerly Twitter) handle, Ejimakor lamented what he described as a troubling reversal. He pointed out that the same government that once claimed credit for supplying intelligence to the U.S. military was now, through what he described as expensive foreign lobbyists, transferring that credit to an obscure civilian source.
“Previously, the Nigerian government claimed the credit for providing the intelligence for the U.S. airstrike in Sokoto,” he wrote. “Now, the same government, through its $9 million lobbyists, has contradicted itself by shifting the credit to a ‘screwdriver trader.’ This is a national embarrassment.”
His remarks have further fuelled the controversy surrounding the U.S. airstrike, which continues to attract intense public attention. In the immediate aftermath of the operation, Nigerian authorities had maintained that local security agencies played a critical role in identifying the target.
However, subsequent media reports suggested that a private individual—identified by The New York Times as a screwdriver trader and chairman of Intersociety—was responsible for circulating reports and information that allegedly influenced and guided the U.S. military action.
Ejimakor argued that such conflicting narratives weaken Nigeria’s credibility on the international stage and expose what he described as the government’s reliance on highly paid foreign lobbyists to manage its image abroad. He warned that attempts to rewrite the story raise serious concerns about transparency, national sovereignty, and the integrity of official communication on security matters.
As the New York Times report continues to generate debate within and outside Nigeria, the issue has reignited discussions on the country’s security relationship with the United States, as well as the growing role of international public relations firms hired by the government to shape global perceptions of Nigeria.