My Side of the Story: Ademola Addresses Viral Claims by Nigerian Workers in CAR

By: Michael Mike

Nigerian businessman Abdulrauf Ademola has responded to allegations made by six Nigerian workers in the Central African Republic (CAR), who accused him of passport seizure, unpaid salaries, and abandonment in a widely circulated vid4 we 00beo.

In a statement made available to newsmen at the weekend, Ademola refuted the claims, describing them as exaggerated and misleading.

Ademola clarified that the workers’ passports were not confiscated but were being processed for work permit extensions in Bangui. He said: “This is the second time we are Extending their permits because I want to ensure all our workers have legal status,” he said. “Nobody seized their passports at all.”

Addressing claims that the workers were abandoned at the mining site, he explained that operations were scaled down due to the rainy season.

“There are still 10 Nigerian workers and about 40 Central African employees with security on-site. A Chinese mechanic recently left, but workers are being rotated off duty gradually. Is this abandonment? Maybe I missed a call, but we did not desert anyone”, he said.

The workers had alleged they were owed 10 months’ salary, but Ademola countered that they had only been in CAR for five months, including time spent in the capital, Bangui.

He said: “They were paid allowances while in Bangui and received above-average wages once on-site, including food provisions. The dispute arose because I delayed two months’ pay due to bad weather and some workers’ misconduct.

“We were discussing adjustments, which likely triggered their social media outcry.”

Ademola insisted his account was backed by documentation and said he had informed the Nigerian Embassy in CAR to investigate.

“I have legal evidence for all my claims.This is an internal company matter, not a diplomatic crisis”, he explained.

He urged media outlets to avoid sensationalising the issue. “I appeal to journalists not to exploit this situation to create tension between Nigeria and CAR,” Ademola said. “We are peaceful Nigerians resolving a workplace disagreement.”

The Nigerian Embassy in CAR has yet to issue a statement on the matter.

My Side of the Story: Ademola Addresses Viral Claims by Nigerian Workers in CAR

Troops neutralise three terrorist kingpins in Sokoto ambush

By: Zagazola Makama

Troops of Operation FANSAN YAMMA (OPFY) have neutralised three notorious terrorist kingpins during a successful ambush operation in Sabon Birni Local Government Area (LGA) of Sokoto State.

Zagazola Makama report that the operation was conducted on July 25 between Mallamawa and Mazau villages in the Tsamaye/Mai Lalle District of the LGA.

During the operation, the troops neutralised the terrorists identified as Kachalla Nagomma, Gurmu and Ali Yar Daribiyar, and recovered three AK-47 rifles with magazines and a motorcycle.

Sources told Zagazola that the terrorists and their foot soldiers were in the area to collect ransom and illegal levies imposed on residents when they were ambushed by the troops.

The source said the operation has triggered widespread relief and jubilation among residents of Mai Lalle, Tsamaye, Rimaye and nearby communities across Sabon Birni and Goronyo LGAs.

“These terrorists have long tormented the communities with killings, kidnappings and extortion, so this success is a huge morale boost for the people,” the source added.

The troops have continued to intensify kinetic and non-kinetic efforts in synergy with other security agencies and local vigilante groups.

The military has urged members of the public to continue providing credible and timely information to assist the troops in sustaining momentum against criminal elements.

Troops neutralise three terrorist kingpins in Sokoto ambush

Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech

By: Zagazola Makama

Once again, Amnesty International has taken a predictable but deeply troubling stance, this time, condemning the lawful detention of a social media influencer, Ghali Isma’il, who is facing charges over a false and provocative video announcing the death of Nigeria’s sitting President. In its hasty and one-sided statement, Amnesty labeled the Department of State Services’ (DSS) action as “a clear demonstration of abuse of power.” This knee-jerk condemnation reeks not only of bias but of a dangerous disregard for the responsibility that comes with free speech.

It’s important to remember that the Nigerian authorities are acting within the bounds of the law. Ghali Isma’il appeared before a competent magistrate and is being tried for spreading false information an issue of concern to public safety and stability. The viral video claiming the President’s death by poisoning, however unfounded and provocative, point to the need for responsible speech, especially in a period when misinformation can quickly escalate tensions or cause panic.

Let’s be clear: no one is above the law. Isma’il was not whisked away to a secret cell. He was arraigned before a competent magistrate court in Abuja and is being tried according to the laws of the land. The charges spreading false information with intent to cause public alarm and inciting disaffection against the government are not political fabrications.

They are legitimate concerns, especially when tied to a video falsely claiming that President Bola Tinubu had died after being poisoned, and presented with an air of certainty that could spark panic in a country already battling complex security and economic challenges.

If this is what Amnesty International classifies as “freedom of expression,” then the organization must clarify where it draws the line between speech and sabotage. Are we now to accept that individuals can publish death hoaxes about national leaders and peddle wild, fabricated conspiracy theories under the guise of digital activism? Would Amnesty extend this same compassion if the target were a leader in Europe or America?

Is it truly free speech when falsehoods threaten public order or incite unrest? Would Amnesty International hold the same stance if similar misinformation targeted leaders in other parts of the world? These are complex issues with no easy answers, but it is crucial that we weigh the right to expression against the potential harm caused by reckless or deliberately false content.

Let us also not forget that this is not Ghali Isma’il’s first brush with dangerous disinformation. He has repeatedly posted bizarre claims including that former U.S. President Donald Trump was compelling Nigeria to repatriate terrorists into the country and quoting the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Yusuf Tugger, who never mentioned such in his interview. Yusuf said they are ex- convict from Venezuela but Ismail, said they are “Terrorists” . When does free speech become reckless speech? When does falsehood become a threat to national peace and cohesion? This calls for a measured discussion on when speech crosses into dangerous territory especially when it influences public perception and stability.

Moreover, one must ask: where was Amnesty International when ISWAP terrorists released gruesome videos of mass executions? Where was Amnesty when bandits kidnapped and murdered citizens or when IPOB loyalists torched police stations and killed security personnel? The silence or muted response from Amnesty International in those cases raises questions about consistency and priorities. Their silence in the face of these atrocities is deafening. Yet, whenever the Nigerian state acts to preserve order and prevent chaos, Amnesty rushes in with a press release always siding with the provocateur.

Ultimately, the right to free speech must be exercised responsibly. Supporting lawful limits when speech could threaten national peace isn’t a contradiction to human rights but a recognition of their importance in a complex society.

Amnesty International faces an important question: will it stand as a defender of genuine human rights and democratic stability, or does it risk becoming a platform that inadvertently enables disinformation that jeopardizes it?

This double standard is becoming increasingly apparent to Nigerians. The right to free speech must be protected, yes but it must also be exercised with responsibility. Defending lies that threaten national unity under the cloak of human rights advocacy is not activism; it is sabotage.

Amnesty International must decide: is it here to protect Nigeria’s democracy or to shield those who exploit social media to endanger it?

Zagazola Makama is a Counter Insurgency Expert and Security Analyst in the Lake Chad Region

Amnesty International must stop defending dangerous falsehoods in the name of free speech