A startling claim has reemerged in Nigerian media circles: that the United Arab Emirates presented the Nigerian government with a list of suspected terrorists’ financiers, but the administration under former President Muhammadu Buhari declined to make the names public. The allegation raises deep questions about transparency in counter-terrorism, accountability for terror funding, and Nigeria’s commitment to prosecuting those who allegedly bankrolled bloodshed. As the country continues to battle extremist violence, the accusation pricks at the heart of public trust — did Nigeria turn away critical intelligence from a key international partner, or is the story more nuanced?
Background: Terror Financing, Buhari, and the UAE
To understand the gravity of the accusation, it is essential to revisit how this story unfolded. The UAE reportedly designated a group of individuals and entities as “sponsors of terrorism.” Among them were several Nigerians alleged to have transferred funds to extremist groups in Nigeria during the mid-2010s. According to public reports, these individuals were tied to Boko Haram. Separately, U.S. authorities sanctioned some of the same names, citing their involvement in raising money in the UAE for extremist causes.
In response to the UAE’s list, the Nigerian government, under President Buhari, publicly stated that it would not adopt a “naming and shaming” approach. Instead, officials insisted their agencies were investigating quietly and that the focus should be on building court-ready cases, not on scoring political points. According to government spokespeople, security agencies were gathering intelligence, collaborating with international partners, and laying the groundwork for prosecutions.
The Core Claim: A Rejected Offer
At the center of the controversy lies the claim that the UAE did not merely name suspects, but formally offered Nigeria a dossier of individuals believed to be sponsoring terrorism. According to the report, Nigeria declined this offer. Critics say this refusal amounted to shielding financiers rather than confronting them.
Former government spokesmen reportedly justified the decision by arguing that revealing names prematurely could jeopardize ongoing investigations. They emphasized a commitment to due process and suggested that public naming could threaten diplomatic relations or intelligence-sharing partnerships. Still, opponents remain skeptical.
Criticism and Political Fallout
Opposition parties and civil society organizations reacted swiftly and harshly. They argued that by refusing to publicize the list, the government was fostering impunity. The demand went beyond simple disclosure — critics insisted that Nigeria needed a full reckoning, with transparent prosecution and prosecution outcomes visible to its citizens.
Civil society actors also expressed concern that secrecy might encourage more financing networks. Without public pressure, they argued, investigations could stall, and wealthy or politically connected financiers might escape accountability. Others suggested that reluctance to name names could reflect political protection for powerful individuals.
For many, the issue symbolizes a deeper crisis of trust. In communities ravaged by extremist violence, failing to publicly root out financial backers strikes as a betrayal. The sense is that while foot soldiers are hunted down, financial architects remain in the shadows.
The Government’s Defense
Proponents of the government’s approach contend that counter-terrorism investigations require discretion. Securing actionable intelligence is more complicated than making headlines. Revealing sensitive information could tip off suspects, alert other financiers, or compromise ongoing operations.
From this perspective, the Buhari administration’s strategy was pragmatic: work behind the scenes, build airtight cases, and bring people to justice through the courts. According to government officials, naming suspects publicly before prosecution might undermine the integrity of investigations and even international cooperation.
In addition, exposing names could have diplomatic consequences. Some argue that publicly revealing a list given by a foreign government might be seen as exposing diplomatic partners, creating strains in future intelligence sharing or security cooperation.
The Stakes: Why This Matters
The consequences of this story are profound.
For Nigeria’s security architecture, the allegations challenge whether the current system can effectively combat not just violent actors but those who fund them. Terror financing often proves more difficult to disrupt than the violence itself, and failure to address it undermines long-term stability.
For democratic accountability, the refusal to publicize the names raises serious questions. If suspected financiers are never named, prosecuted, and held publicly accountable, the public may rightly suspect that powerful interests are protected. This dynamic could erode confidence in both the political class and security agencies.
For civil society and victims’ communities, transparency is deeply personal. Many Nigerians living in terror-affected zones want closure — for the financiers as much as the fighters. Without that, the sense of injustice persists, and reconciliation remains elusive.
Finally, on the global front, how Nigeria handles terror financing carries weight. As a country that often cooperates with international counterterrorism partners, its willingness to address financial networks influences how partners view its seriousness in the fight.
What the Public Record Shows
Available evidence gives some support to the narrative — without fully confirming every detail. Public reports acknowledge that the UAE did designate several Nigerians as terror financiers. International authorities, including U.S. regulators, have sanctioned some of the same individuals. Meanwhile, Nigerian officials acknowledged receiving intelligence and stated that investigations were underway, but repeatedly declined to publicize all names.
There is also documented internal pressure. According to statements released by government spokespeople, agencies such as the financial intelligence and national security units were actively working to convert intelligence into prosecutable cases. In private briefings, Nigerian authorities claimed to have identified dozens of financiers through intelligence sharing with more than a dozen foreign partners. Civil society actors, however, say the pace of prosecutions and public disclosure has been slow, even disappointing.
Risks and Challenges
Several risks complicate this entire affair:
- Investigative and Legal Risk: Naming suspects too early could threaten ongoing investigations. If intelligence leaks publicly, it might prevent tracking critical financial flows or bring legal challenges.
- Diplomatic Risk: Exposing a dossier from a foreign government could strain Nigeria’s relationships and undermine trust with international partners.
- Political Risk: If the list includes people with political connections or high social status, naming them could lead to backlash or allegations of politically motivated witch-hunts.
- Public Trust Risk: On the other hand, continued secrecy risks alienating civil society, victims, and the general public, who may feel justice is being withheld or manipulated.
