Formal Rebuttal to the Recent Interview Granted by Retired Major General Ali Keffi on Arise TV

Formal Rebuttal to the Recent Interview Granted by Retired Major General Ali Keffi on Arise TV

Dr. MS Abubakar

I write this piece today not as a representative of any organization, but as a private citizen who has watched with growing alarm the recent interview given by Retired Major General Ali Keffi on Arise TV. In that interview, General Keffi made a series of veiled accusations against several prominent Nigerians—most notably the former Chief of Army Staff, Lieutenant General TY Buratai (Rtd)—suggesting, without presenting any evidence, that they are involved in the financing of terrorism.

As a Nigerian who has, over the years, observed the conduct of our security forces from the frontlines and who has personally benefited from the decisive actions of General Buratai, I feel compelled to set the record straight, to invoke the legal framework that governs such serious allegations, and to underscore the grave consequences that flow from the reckless dissemination of unsubstantiated claims.

1. The Legal Context of Accusations of Terrorism Financing

Under the Terrorism Prevention Act (TPA) 2019 (as amended), the offence of “terrorism financing” is defined in Section 15 and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. The law is unequivocal: an accusation of this nature is not a matter of opinion; it is a criminal allegation that must be substantiated by credible, admissible evidence.

Equally important is the Defamation Act, 1961, which, though archaic, still provides that a statement that tends to lower a person in the estimation of rightthinking members of society, or that exposes them to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, is actionable if it is false. Nigerian courts have repeatedly held that public figures, including retired military officers, are entitled to the same protection against defamation as any other citizen, especially when the statements impute criminal conduct.

Consequently, any public figure who makes an allegation of terrorism financing without proof not only risks civil liability for defamation but also potentially triggers criminal investigation under the TPA. The onus of proof lies squarely on the accuser. General Keffi, in his interview, offered no documentary evidence, no witness testimony, nor any official inquiry findings to back his claims. By doing so, he has exposed himself to both civil and criminal repercussions under Nigerian law.

2. General Buratai’s Record: Concrete Examples of Blocking Ransom Payments.

To illustrate why the accusations are not only baseless but also contrary to the factual record, allow me to recount a specific incident that has been widely reported but apparently overlooked by General Keffi.

In early 2019, a prominent clergyman—whose name I shall refrain from mentioning out of respect for his family, was abducted by a Boko Haram cell operating in the Lake Chad Basin.

The kidnappers demanded a ransom of $500,000 for his release. The demand quickly found its way to senior political figures, including a former Vice President, a sitting State Governor, and several members of the Senate, all of whom exerted considerable pressure on the Presidency to authorise the payment.

General Buratai, then serving as Chief of Army Staff, was informed of the unfolding negotiations. He immediately sought for a meeting with the President and made it unequivocally clear that any payment of ransom would be a violation of the government’s counterterrorism policy and would embolden the terrorists, leading to further abductions.

The President, after a brief deliberation, accepted General Buratai’s recommendation and ordered that no ransom be paid. The decision was communicated to the family of the clergyman, who were understandably distressed. Over the ensuing twelve months, the Army, in collaboration with the DSS and international partners, intensified its kinetic and nonkinetic operations against the responsible cell. Through a combination of intelligencedriven raids, the capture of a key financier, and the disruption of the group’s communication networks, the terrorists were forced to release the clergyman without any ransom being paid. He was reunited with his family in December 2020 or thereabouts.

General Keffi’s interview failed to mention any of these facts. Instead, he insinuated that General Buratai might have been complicit in the financing of terrorism, a claim that is directly contradicted by the documented refusal to pay ransom and the subsequent successful rescue operation.

3. The Broader Pattern of General Buratai’s CounterTerrorism Leadership

The clergyman’s case is not an isolated incident. During General Buratai’s tenure (July 2015 – January 2021), the Nigerian Army recorded several milestones that demonstrate a consistent refusal to negotiate with terrorists:

 1. Operation BOY ELEVEN (2016–2017): The Army dismantled a Boko Haram logistics hub in Sambisa Forest, seizing weapons, IEDs, and a cache of cash that had been earmarked for ransom payments. The operation resulted in the death of several highvalue Boko Haram commanders and the liberation of over 300 hostiles, none of whom were released in exchange for money

2. The “No Ransom” Policy (2018): In a landmark directive, General Buratai ordered that all units under his command reject any demand for ransom, instructing commanders to inform higher headquarters immediately of any such attempt.

3. The Chibok Girls Saga (2018–2020): When the issue of paying ransom to secure the release of the Chibok schoolgirls resurfaced, General Buratai publicly stated that the Army would not support any ransom payment, emphasizing that “negotiating with terrorists only encourages further abductions.” His stance was instrumental in ensuring that the government maintained its “noransom” position, despite intense lobbying from various quarters.

These actions, recorded in official military communiqués and corroborated by multiple independent sources, including reports from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), paint a picture of a leader who consistently placed national security above personal or political considerations.

4. The True Nature of Major General Keffi’s Conduct

With all due respect to Major General Ali Keffi and his record of service, he is not, and cannot be, a court of law to simply declare certain personalities guilty of a crime of such magnitude.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in Section 36(5), guarantees the right of every person to a fair hearing and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. General Keffi’s public assertions, therefore, run contrary to the constitutional safeguards that protect every Nigerian.

It is also pertinent to note that General Keffi’s military career was cut short not by any lack of valour but by a series of selfinflicted missteps. Like many of his coursemates, he engaged in lobbying and sponsored media stories in the hope of being appointed Chief of Army Staff after the untimely death of Lieutenant General Attahiru Ibrahim. When the late President Muhammadu Buhari selected Lieutenant General Faruk Yahaya for the role, General Keffi chose contempt over loyalty. During the then Chief of Army Staff’s operational visit to Kaduna, General Keffi, who was then General Officer Commanding 1 Division, was conspicuously absent, offering the flimsy excuse that he had gone “to the bush to fight bandits.” Such insubordination is intolerable in any disciplined force and undoubtedly contributed to the decision to retire him.  The Army leadership at the time concluded that it could not continue to serve with an officer whose loyalty was in question.

Seeking vengeance by blackmailing General Buratai and other senior officers who have risked their lives to restore peace is a mission that is dead on arrival. We will not keep quiet and allow that to go unchallenged. While we acknowledge that Lieutenant General TY Buratai is not perfect no human being is the weight of the evidence shows that his intentions for Nigeria have always been noble and free of any sinister motive. What possible benefit could he derive from aiding or collaborating with the enemies of our nation? It is deeply saddening that after surviving multiple brushes with death at the hands of Boko Haram gunmen, a senior retired officer would turn around to accuse men like General Buratai of terrorism financing.

5. The Consequences of Unfounded Allegations

General Keffi’s interview, while cloaked in the language of “concern for the nation,” amounts to a classic case of “character assassination”. The legal ramifications are twofold:

– Criminal Liability: Under Section 15 of the TPA, any person who “makes a false statement that a person has committed an offence under this Act” may be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years. The absence of any evidentiary basis for the claim that General Buratai financed terrorism places General Keffi squarely within the ambit of this provision. – Civil Liability: The law of defamation in Nigeria recognises that a statement imputing a criminal offence to a person is defamatory per se. The claimant need not prove special damage; the mere publication of the false statement is sufficient to establish liability. Given the wide reach of Arise TV and the subsequent sharing of the interview on social media platforms, the potential damages are substantial.

Beyond the legal sphere, such allegations erode public trust in our security institutions. When retired senior officers, who are presumed to possess a deep understanding of the operational realities, make unsubstantiated claims, they risk “destabilising” the very fabric of our national security architecture. They also provide a propaganda tool for terrorist organisations, which can cite the interview as “evidence” that the Nigerian state is divided and that its leaders are corrupt.

6. Personal Reflections: Why I Speak Out

I have had the privilege of working alongside General Buratai both during his tenure as Chief of Army Staff and after his retirement. In those capacities, I witnessed firsthand his unwavering commitment to the principle that “no ransom should be paid to terrorists.”

These experiences have left me with an indelible conviction that General Buratai’s legacy is one of “integrity, courage, and service.” To see that legacy tarnished by baseless insinuations is, to me, an affront not only to a single individual but to every Nigerian who has ever worn a uniform or who has suffered the scourge of terrorism.

7. A Call to Accountability and a Plea for Responsible Public Discourse

To Major General Ali Keffi, I respectfully submit the following:

1. Retract the Allegations: In the interest of truth and national harmony, I urge you to issue a public retraction of the statements made against General Buratai and any other individuals implicated in your interview.

2. Provide Evidence: If you possess any credible information that substantiates the claim of terrorism financing, present it to the appropriate investigative bodies—namely the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and the Department of State Services (DSS)—so that due process may be followed.

3. Apologise: A sincere apology to General Buratai, his family, and the wider Nigerian public will go a long way in mitigating the damage caused by the interview.

To my fellow citizens, I ask that we demand “evidencebased discourse” from our public figures. The price of allowing falsehoods to proliferate unchecked is far greater than the momentary satisfaction of venting frustration. It is a price paid in the currency of national cohesion, investor confidence, and, most tragically, the lives of those who continue to fight on the frontlines.

Let it be very clear: no one in this world can destroy the immaculate service of military leaders like General TY Buratai, who today is widely acclaimed as an accomplished tactician and counterterrorism operations leader not only in Nigeria but also in countries such as Rwanda, Brazil, South Korea, and the United States. As for collaborating, aiding, facilitating or covering for any armed opposition group, even the terrorists themselves would be surprised, and perhaps laughing, at such baseless allegations. In truth, General Buratai is an innocent victim of blackmail by sinister and cowardly politicians.

8. Conclusion

In sum, the interview granted by Retired Major General Ali Keffi on Arise TV contains serious, unsubstantiated accusations that, if left unchallenged, could have farreaching legal and societal consequences. The factual record, as documented in military reports, intelligence assessments, and reputable international analyses, demonstrates that Lieutenant General TY Buratai, during his command and after his retirement, consistently acted in the best interests of Nigeria, refusing ransom payments, degrading Boko Haram’s operational capacity, and upholding the rule of law

The law is clear: “accusations of terrorism financing must be backed by proof.” The absence of such proof renders the statements defamatory and potentially criminal. As a concerned Nigerian, I stand ready to support any lawful investigation into these matters, and I call upon General Keffi to either substantiate his claims or to retract them unequivocally.

Let us, as a nation, recommit ourselves to the principles of “justice, truth, and accountability,” and reject the politics of innuendo that only serves to weaken our collective resolve against terrorism.

May God continue to bless Nigeria and guide our leaders toward peace and prosperity.