By Chibuike Nwabuko
ABUJA (PRECISE POST) – Two senior figures serving the same Nigeria’s All Progressives Congress-led federal government, Femi Fani-Kayode (Ambassador designate) and the Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Policy Communication, Daniel Bwala have offered sharply conflicting accounts over the source of intelligence that reportedly informed recent U.S. military action, exposing an unusual public discord within official ranks.
Both government appointees reaacted on their respective social media platforms, (Facebook and X handle) on different days – Monday and Tuesday respectively.
While both men dismiss a New York Times report that traced the origin of the narrative influencing U.S. lawmakers to claims by a Nigerian civil society actor, their explanations of what actually shaped Washington’s decision could not be more different.
Presidential aide Daniel Bwala insists that the international perception which led to U.S. policy actions against Nigeria, particularly its designation as a Country of Particular Concern, was driven by what he describes as a fabricated “Christian Genocide” narrative.
According to him, the storyline was deliberately pushed by separatist elements and amplified abroad as credible reporting.
Bwala said he had raised the alarm as far back as August 2025, during his first television appearance, warning that the narrative was false and politically motivated. He added that in subsequent engagements across the United States and Europe, he consistently presented counter-facts to what he called coordinated misinformation.
Pointing to recent investigative reporting by The New York Times, Bwala argued that the paper itself had now traced the claims to Emeka Ugbealasi, suggesting that conjecture and bias were elevated into authoritative “reports.”
He maintained that these claims formed the basis upon which U.S. senators and congressmen shaped their views and ultimately influenced the U.S. President’s decisions on Nigeria.
“Propaganda may travel fast,” Bwala declared, “but truth always catches up.”
However, former Aviation Minister and government ally Femi Fani-Kayode forcefully rejected both the premise and implication of that argument, describing the suggestion that U.S. military action could be based on such sources as absurd and insulting to the intelligence communities of both countries.
However, in a blistering rebuttal, Fani-Kayode argued that no sovereign nation, least of all the United States, would rely on claims from what he derisively termed an “Onitsha-based screwdriver-seller” using Google Maps to plan or justify a military strike. He dismissed the New York Times report as “mischievous,” “infantile,” and designed to embarrass both Nigeria and the U.S.
According to Fani-Kayode, the bombing in question was carried out through close collaboration between U.S. forces and Nigerian armed forces and intelligence agencies. He said Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar, personally confirmed this to him minutes after the operation, including details of the intelligence build-up and coordination that preceded it.
“The idea that any country would allow its territory to be bombed based on such spurious sources is nonsense,” Fani-Kayode said, adding that the American action was based squarely on intelligence supplied by Nigeria’s own security apparatus.
Despite their shared political alignment and common rejection of the New York Times narrative, the contrasting explanations by Bwala and Fani-Kayode underscore a deeper inconsistency in the government’s public messaging. One narrative blames foreign policy outcomes on external misinformation amplified by activists and media; the other insists on a tightly coordinated, state-to-state intelligence operation that leaves no room for such claims.
Precise Post recalls that as debate continues, the divergent voices from within the same government raise fresh questions about coherence, communication, and credibility at a time when Nigeria’s international image and security partnerships remain under intense global scrutiny.
