Nigeria’s Ambassador-designate, Femi Fani-Kayode, on Monday, rejected claims by The New York Times that United States airstrikes in Sokoto State were based on intelligence from a civilian source rather than official Nigerian channels.
In a post on his X platform, Fani-Kayode argued that it was implausible for Washington to rely on information from a private individual using online mapping tools.
He insisted that the operation could only have been carried out through formal collaboration between the U.S. and Nigerian security agencies.
He described the newspaper’s account as “misleading and damaging.
The former minister of aviation also accused the newspaper of undermining the credibility of both governments and their intelligence services.
According to him, the Foreign Affairs Minister, Yusuf Tuggar had already clarified that the strikes were coordinated with Nigeria’s Armed Forces and intelligence agencies.
Fani-Kayode said he personally spoke with Tuggar shortly after the bombing, who confirmed that the intelligence came directly from the Nigerian government
He stressed that no sovereign nation would permit such military action without official cooperation.
He wrote: “Anyone that honestly believes that the U.S. Government based its intelligence to bomb parts of Sokoto State on the intel supplied by an Onitsha-based screwdriver-seller who used Google map to source his information and not on the intel supplied by the Nigerian intelligence services must have a low IQ, low self-esteem and a low intelligence quotient. I respectfully urge such a person to get sense.”
He further condemned the report as “fake news… a hefty load of disingenuous and infantile hogwash,” adding: “No country will allow its territory to be bombed in the name of fighting ISIS on the words of an Onitsha utensils trader. The Nigerian Foreign Minister has made it clear that the Americans acted in collaboration with our Armed Forces and Intelligence agencies, and the intel they used was given to them by our Government.”
Fani-Kayode concluded that the NYT narrative was “puerile and childish” and should be disregarded.
