Ejiofor Slams NYT Report, Defends Umeagbalasi Amid Terrorism Narrative War
He described attempts to trivialise Umeagbalasi’s work as an attack on democratic space itself.
Abuja, Nigeria – January 19, 2026
A senior Nigerian human rights lawyer, Barrister Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has issued a strongly worded response to a recent New York Times publication titled “The Screwdriver Salesman Behind Trump’s Airstrikes in Nigeria,” describing the report as a distortion of facts and an affront to journalistic integrity in the context of global counter-terrorism.
The said New York Times article has since been widely circulated and amplified by both local and foreign media outlets.
Chief among the Nigerian publications that reported it is The Cable, which he specifically referenced by attaching a screenshot to underscore how the narrative was being echoed and domesticated within the Nigerian media space.
In a lengthy statement released under his regular “Monday Musing” series, Ejiofor condemned what he called a “carefully choreographed media lynching” of Mr. Emeka Umeagbalasi, Chairman of the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety).
The lawyer accused paid lobbyists and media intermediaries of amplifying false narratives aimed at discrediting Umeagbalasi’s decades-long documentation of terrorism and religious persecution in Nigeria.
“There is a peculiar arrogance that accompanies paid advocacy when it strays beyond its lawful and ethical brief,” Ejiofor wrote, warning against attempts to intimidate journalists and civil society actors into silence.
‘Advocacy Has Degenerated Into Farce’
Ejiofor faulted the New York Times’ framing of Umeagbalasi as a “screwdriver salesman,” arguing that such reductionism was designed to undermine the credibility of a trained criminologist and researcher whose work has informed public debate for years.
He dismissed claims that Umeagbalasi’s reports formed the exclusive basis for U.S. policy or military action as “theatre of the absurd.”
“Are we seriously being invited to believe that the President of the United States, presiding over the most sophisticated intelligence architecture in human history, would predicate consequential military decisions on a single Nigerian civil society report?” Ejiofor asked.
He noted that the suggestion insults not only common sense but also the intelligence agencies of the United States, including the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, and allied global security networks.
Returning to Facts, Not Noise
The senior advocate urged observers to separate propaganda from verifiable realities. He outlined four points, describing them as settled facts: the documented persecution and killing of Christians in parts of Northern Nigeria; the sustained presence of Boko Haram, ISWAP, and other jihadist bandit groups; Nigeria’s acknowledged cooperation with foreign partners on counter-terrorism; and the country’s need for external intelligence and logistical support to confront transnational terror networks.
“These are not opinions,” Ejiofor stated. “They are empirical realities.”
He cited reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and United Nations agencies as independent confirmation of widespread insecurity and mass violence.
Why the Backlash?
According to Ejiofor, the controversy surrounding Umeagbalasi is less about data integrity and more about threatened interests. He argued that actors who benefit financially or politically from insecurity are instinctively hostile to transparency and international scrutiny.
“To such actors, foreign collaboration is dangerous not because it destabilises Nigeria, but because it destabilises their revenue streams and curated falsehoods,” he wrote.
Ejiofor rejected claims that international cooperation in intelligence and counter-terrorism undermines Nigeria’s sovereignty, describing such arguments as either “naïve patriotism or calculated dishonesty.”
A Call to Defend Journalism and the Rule of Law
In a concluding appeal, Ejiofor warned against allowing lobbyists or propaganda networks to dictate journalistic narratives, stressing that civil society advocates are not foot soldiers for any political agenda. He described attempts to trivialise Umeagbalasi’s work as an attack on democratic space itself.
“Today it is Emeka Umeagbalasi; tomorrow it will be any voice deemed inconvenient to entrenched power,” he cautioned.
The statement ended with a call for vigilance, transparency, and courage in the face of terror and misinformation.
“Let journalism breathe. Let the law speak. And let those who profit from chaos tremble at the prospect of light,” Ejiofor declared.
Read full article below:
Related Articles
