By Abdulwahab Muhammad
After carefully reading the lengthy press statement issued by Senator Shehu Buba Umar in response to allegations linking him to banditry, terrorism financing, kidnapping and other criminal activities, one particular portion of his statement caught my attention.
Senator Buba publicly challenged anyone possessing credible evidence that he had sponsored, financed, armed, facilitated or supported bandits, terrorists, kidnappers or any criminal organisation to submit such evidence to the relevant security agencies.
He further cautioned against relying on social media materials, edited videos, insinuations, propaganda or anonymous allegations.
That position raises an important question:
Are the videos, testimonies, analyses, reports and other materials already circulating in connection with these serious allegations not sufficient grounds for the relevant security and intelligence agencies to investigate and establish the facts?
This question should not be interpreted as a declaration of guilt against Senator Buba. Neither social media nor public commentary should substitute for a competent investigation, due process and, where necessary, judicial determination.
Indeed, Senator Buba has denied the allegations and maintained that some of the materials circulating publicly were manipulated, unrelated or presented out of context.
But that is precisely why an independent and comprehensive investigation is important.
If the videos were edited, let competent forensic experts establish that.
If they were manipulated, let investigators demonstrate how they were manipulated.
If separate materials were combined to create a misleading impression, let forensic examination establish their origins, dates and circumstances.
If individuals appearing in the materials have been wrongly identified, let investigators establish their identities.
And if allegations contained in interviews, videos and other materials are false, let that also be established through a credible investigative process.
Conversely, if any of the materials contain information capable of substantiating criminal allegations, the law should equally be allowed to take its course.
The fundamental issue, therefore, should not be whether allegations first appeared on social media. The important question is whether the allegations and accompanying materials contain information worthy of professional investigation.
Allegations involving terrorism financing, banditry, kidnapping or support for criminal organisations are matters of national security. They are too serious to be resolved through competing press statements, political exchanges or social-media arguments.
Those making allegations should make whatever credible evidence they possess available to investigators. Senator Buba should equally be afforded every opportunity to respond to such evidence and defend himself.
The relevant security agencies should independently authenticate the materials, interview witnesses where necessary and examine whatever records may assist in establishing the facts.
No Nigerian should be convicted through social media.
But equally, serious allegations should not simply be dismissed because some of the information first emerged on social media.
The purpose of a professional investigation is precisely to separate fact from fabrication, authentic evidence from manipulation, and legitimate allegations from political propaganda.
Senator Buba is entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process.
The Nigerian public is equally entitled to clarity and credible answers.
Ultimately, this matter should not be determined by political affiliation, personal sentiment or social-media narratives. It should be determined by facts, evidence and the rule of law.
Let the relevant security agencies investigate comprehensively and impartially. Let every relevant piece of material be subjected to professional scrutiny. And, subject to legitimate national-security considerations, let Nigerians know the findings.
That is the credible way to resolve allegations of this magnitude—not through speculation or counter-accusations, but through evidence, due process and the rule of law.
By Abdulwahab Muhammad
