Titus Eleweke, South East Editor
AWKA, Anambra – Renowned Nigerian human rights lawyer and lead counsel to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Sir Ifeanyi Ejiofor, has condemned recent attacks on Mr. Emeka Umeagbalasi, Chairman of the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety).
The attacks accuse Umeagbalasi of allegedly exaggerating documentary evidence of persecution and terrorism in Northern Nigeria.
Ejiofor described the attacks as unacceptable, stating that they represent a further descent into what he termed “the theatre of the absurd.”
He noted that some overzealous propagandists have gone as far as suggesting without evidence, logic, or even minimal restraint,that Umeagbalasi’s documentary work formed the exclusive basis for recent policy actions allegedly attributed to the President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Ejiofor made these remarks in a statement titled “Monday Musing: When Power Confuses Noise for Truth — Paid Lobbyists, Media Charlatans, and the Futile Hunt for Journalistic Sources in a World at War with Terror,” which was issued on Monday.
According to him, such claims raise serious questions about the integrity of public discourse.
He asked pointedly: when did advocacy degenerate into farce, and when did journalism become answerable to lobbyists rather than facts?
He further queried:“Are we seriously being invited to believe that the President of the United States,presiding over the most sophisticated intelligence architecture in human history, encompassing the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, satellite surveillance systems, human intelligence networks, and allied security apparatuses across continents—would predicate consequential military or diplomatic decisions on a single documentary or civil society report originating from Nigeria?”
Ejiofor also posed a fundamental question to critics: whether there is, or is not, documented and ongoing persecution and mass killing of Christians in Northern Nigeria.
According to him, this reality has been independently reported and corroborated by reputable international bodies, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), and multiple United Nations agencies.
The statement reads in full:
There is a peculiar arrogance that often accompanies paid advocacy when it strays beyond its lawful and ethical brief. It is the arrogance that assumes repetition can transmute falsehood into fact, that intimidation may substitute for reason, and that the ancient and jealously guarded protections of journalistic independence can be suspended at the whim of power brokers masquerading as moral arbiters.
Over the past twenty-four hours, Mr. Emeka Umeagbalasi, Chairman of Intersociety and a longstanding civil society advocate, has found himself at the centre of a carefully choreographed media lynching. His alleged offence is the claim that he exaggerated documentary evidence concerning the scale of Christian persecution and terrorism in Northern Nigeria. In a further descent into the theatre of the absurd, some overzealous propagandists have even suggested, without evidence, logic, or the faintest blush of restraint, that his documentary work constituted the exclusive basis for recent policy actions attributed to the President of the United States, Donald Trump.
One is compelled to ask: when did advocacy degenerate into farce, and when did journalism become answerable to lobbyists?
THE 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, encompassing the CIA, FBI, NSA, DIA, satellite surveillance systems, human intelligence networks, and allied security apparatus across continents, would predicate consequential military or diplomatic decisions on a single documentary or civil society report originating from Nigeria?
If this proposition were to be taken seriously, one might reasonably wonder why trillions of dollars are expended annually on intelligence gathering, when apparently a Google search and a Nigerian documentary would suffice.
Sarcasm aside, the suggestion is an insult not only to intelligence institutions, but to elementary common sense.
Let us, therefore, return to facts, those inconvenient intruders into propaganda.
1. Is there documented, ongoing persecution and mass killing of Christians in Northern Nigeria?
Yes. This reality has been independently reported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), and multiple United Nations agencies.
2. Is Northern Nigeria afflicted by Boko Haram, ISWAP, jihadist bandits, and insurgent networks?
Yes. The North-East, North-Central, and North-West remain theatres of sustained asymmetric warfare.
3. Has Nigeria cooperated with the United States and other foreign partners in counter-terrorism operations?
Yes. This cooperation is neither clandestine nor controversial; it is acknowledged state policy.
4. Does Nigeria require foreign intelligence, logistics, and military assistance to combat terrorism effectively?
Again, yes.
These are not opinions. They are empirical realities.
SO, WHY THE NOISE?
Why, then, the orchestrated outrage?
Why the sudden hostility toward an Onitsha-based activist?
Why the manufactured controversy?
The answer, though uncomfortable, is painfully obvious.
Those who profit, financially, politically, or strategically, from insecurity will always resent transparency. Those whose relevance depends on controlled narratives will instinctively recoil when external scrutiny threatens to expose domestic complicity, incompetence, or collusion.
To such actors, foreign collaboration is dangerous, not because it destabilises Nigeria, but because it destabilises their revenue streams, influence networks, and carefully curated falsehoods.
Terrorism is inherently transnational. Its funding, ideology, logistics, and recruitment pipelines do not respect borders. To insist that Nigeria must confront such a hydra alone is either naïve patriotism or calculated dishonesty.
International collaboration in intelligence sharing, counter-terrorism training, surveillance, and targeted operations is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is an assertion of survival. Those who oppose it without offering credible alternatives are not patriots, they are enablers by omission.
LET JOURNALISM BREATHE
Journalists are not court clerks for lobbyists.
Civil society advocates are not foot soldiers for propaganda houses.
And the law does not contort itself to accommodate intellectual laziness or paid indignation.
The attempt to trivialise the legitimate investigative work and documented successes of Emeka Umeagbalasi is an assault not merely on one advocate/activist, but on the very oxygen of democracy. Today it is Emeka Umeagbalasi; tomorrow it will be any voice deemed inconvenient to entrenched power.
History is rarely kind to those who choose silence in the face of terror, or complicity in the presence of truth.
Let journalism breathe.
Let the law speak.
And let those who profit from chaos tremble at the prospect of light.
