Since January 2024 when I served as a rappoteur at a five-day National Security Course on Psychological Operations and Strategic Communication, I have been fascinated with open and secret efforts of Intelligence services to ensure peace, safety and security of our fatherland.
Organised by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA), the programme was well attended by security personnel, scholars, journalists, traditional leaders and political office holders.
The Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, was the keynote speaker while the Communication Minister, Dr. Bosun Tijani, and the Information Minister, Alhaji Mohammed Idris, were among the dignitaries.
The contributions by other facilitators and participants from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA), Department of State Services (DSS), others from the military and intelligence sectors gave delicate perspectives on the interaction between the open media and secret intelligence which has often been based on conflict and cooperation.
An inherent conflict exists between the open media that wish to publish security-related information as part of their responsibility towards the public and on the other hand the intelligence services which work on the basis of secrecy and often attempt to prevent publication of information on their activities and sources. Yet, both the media and intelligence services require information for their basic function and often discover that cooperation can provide important knowledge without harming security interests or operational capabilities.
The relationship between intelligence services and the media is multifaceted and often complex. The media strive for transparency and accountability while intelligence services operate in secrecy due to their national security responsibilities.
It is therefore not surprising that responsible media operators are mindful of the fact that intelligence agencies are inherently secretive. Occasionally, reliable sources within the intelligence service provide credible and not speculative information to the media to enhance operational efficiency.
Journalists and intelligence services share a common interest in information even though the former accumulate legally permitted civil intelligence, while the latter target non-accessible, classified, and illegal data.
Unfortunately, sometimes, ordinary citizens and some commentators, out of ignorance or mischief, dish out misleading information to the public about intelligence services. Rather than protecting the public interest, such misinformation merely compromise national security.
For instance, there was a recent syndicated report alleging nepotism at the DIA where the petitioner claimed that the chief of Defence Intelligence appointed his kinsman as a director. Apart from the false claim that the CDI and the said director are from the same local government area, they are also not from the same branch of the military service.
For the record, the CDI, Major General Emmanuel Parker Undiandeye, an Army officer, was appointed by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Other senior military officers in the agency are representatives of various services whose postings are at the prerogative of their respective service chiefs.
For instance, the Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Air Vice Marshall Samuel Chinda, is from the Nigerian Air Force (NAF). Other senior directors were posted by their respective services to the agency and to some extent reflected the federal character principle. The Director of Operation, an Army Officer is from South-west; the Director of Technical Services, an Air Force Officer, is from the North-central while the Director of Finance, a Naval Officer, is from the South-south.
Apart from the Director of Pension who is from the North-east, there are respected female directors too in the agency, one is a Christian from the South-east and another a Muslim from the North-west who are in charge of Department of Psychological Operation and Department of Research and Development, respectively.
There are many risk factors in reporting activities of intelligence services. The risk lies in disclosing sensitive information that could compromise operations or national security not to talk of misleading conjecture that is fake news.
Disclosures of names, positions and appointments of personnel in the intelligence service mean much more than what they seem to be on the surface. Even ordinary military exercises have coded operational names in vernacular for strategic importance beyond what they mean. Therefore, revealing names, positions, sources, methods, or targets of an intelligence service are risk factors which can lead to countermeasures in delicate situations.
Though there are legal and ethical considerations in publishing reports about privacy rights, civil liberties, or international norms, there are also serious repercussions on their misuse for misinformation campaign to manipulate public opinion.
It is quite worrisome that security and intelligence related matters are now being garbed in the realm of politics and partisanship. Experience has shown that disgruntled elements, especially those indicted or found wanting for corruption, gross misconduct, and other illegal acts are often behind bad media campaigns.
It is gratifying to note that the Defence Ministers, Alhaji Badaru Abubakar and Alhaji Bello Matawalle who were petitioned with the misleading report could read between the lines on the motives of the promoters of fake news.
Public discourse, particularly on matters concerning national security, should be guided by a sense of patriotism, responsibility, and a commitment to accuracy. Inflammatory pronouncements that seek to malign individuals based on conjecture can only lead to detrimental consequences.
Mukhtar Ya’u Madobi, an NDA research student, is the author of “National Security Strategies: A Young Writer’s Perspective.” He writes from Kano via [email protected].
