By Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
A forensic examination of Solomon Dalung’s accusations and Bashir Umar Kirfi’s defence of Senator Shehu Buba
THE REAL QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER DALUNG IS RIGHT OR WHETHER KIRFI IS RIGHT
There is a temptation in Nigerian political discourse to reduce every controversy to a binary choice:
Who is telling the truth?
But the Senator Shehu Buba–Solomon Dalung controversy requires a more sophisticated question:
What exactly is established as fact, what remains an allegation, what has been independently verified, what has been contradicted, and what questions remain legitimately unanswered?
That is where responsible analysis begins.
The rejoinder by Bashir Umar Kirfi, a media aide to Senator Shehu Buba Umar, makes an important legal and democratic argument: an allegation is not a conviction, suspicion is not proof, and political rhetoric cannot substitute for evidence.
That proposition is correct.
But the rejoinder also contains an analytical weakness.
It risks creating the opposite error: treating the absence of a publicly available conviction or published intelligence report as though it automatically resolves every legitimate question surrounding the allegations.
It does not.
There is a third position between “Senator Buba is guilty” and “there is absolutely nothing to investigate.”
That third position is:
There are serious allegations that deserve transparent, competent investigation, but the publicly available evidence presently does not justify declaring Senator Shehu Buba Umar a sponsor of terrorism or banditry as an established fact.
That is the intellectually defensible position.
And it is where both sides need to meet.
PART ONE — WHAT DALUNG IS ACTUALLY SAYING
Former Minister of Youth and Sports Development Solomon Dalung has repeatedly framed the issue as part of a larger national-security problem: the failure of Nigerian authorities to identify, expose and prosecute alleged financiers and sponsors of terrorism and banditry.
In September 2025, Dalung publicly questioned why the Federal Government had not released names of alleged terrorist financiers. In that intervention, he specifically mentioned Senator Shehu Buba among politicians who had been accused in media reports of aiding terrorists and asked why such allegations had not resulted in a public investigation. (The Guardian Nigeria)
That is important because Dalung’s argument is not necessarily:
“Shehu Buba has been convicted; therefore he is guilty.”
His stronger argument is:
“If allegations of this magnitude exist, why has the Nigerian state not conclusively investigated, cleared or prosecuted those implicated?”
That is a legitimate public-policy question.
Where Dalung becomes vulnerable is when the question of investigation begins to blur into an insinuation of guilt.
There is a massive difference between:
“Investigate Senator Buba.”
and
“Senator Buba sponsors bandits.”
The first is a demand for due process.
The second is a factual assertion requiring evidence.
That distinction is fundamental.
PART TWO — KIRFI’S CENTRAL ARGUMENT IS LEGALLY STRONG
Kirfi’s rejoinder correctly attacks one of the most dangerous habits in contemporary political communication:
The conversion of repetition into truth.
An allegation appears in one newspaper.
Another platform republishes it.
A social-media account repeats it.
A politician refers to it.
A commentator discusses the politician’s statement.
Then, months later, someone says:
“It has been widely reported that Senator Buba sponsors bandits.”
But what has actually happened?
The allegation has been multiplied, not necessarily verified.
That is an important distinction.
The fact that 50 websites repeat an allegation does not transform it into 50 pieces of independent evidence.
Indeed, the recent Buba controversy demonstrates precisely why this distinction matters.
PART THREE — THE VIRAL VIDEO PROBLEM
In August 2026, a viral video circulated purporting to show bandits visiting or staying in the residence of an unnamed senator.
That material was subsequently investigated by PRNigeria.
Its findings were devastating to the viral narrative.
PRNigeria concluded that the video had combined two apparently unrelated pieces of footage.
The first showed men in traditional northern clothing.
The second showed different individuals displaying international passports.
The investigation identified the men in the first footage as Alhaji Isa Usman and Alhaji Abubakar Bula, Kaduna-based businessmen and pilgrims who had visited Senator Shehu Buba in 2023 after pilgrimage.
PRNigeria found no evidence linking the two men to banditry or terrorism and rated the viral claim:
“False and Misleading.” (PRNigeria News)
This matters enormously.
Why?
Because it demonstrates that at least one major visual component used to reinforce the public narrative against Senator Buba was unreliable.
But there is another important analytical caution.
A debunked video does not automatically prove that every allegation against Senator Buba is false.
That would be the mirror-image fallacy.
If Evidence A is false, it does not automatically make Evidence B true.
And if Evidence A is true, it does not automatically prove the entire allegation.
Each piece of evidence must stand on its own.
PART FOUR — THE 2024 HAJJ CONTROVERSY IS DIFFERENT
This is where Kirfi’s rejoinder requires significant correction.
He describes the Hajj matter essentially as an “old allegation” that has simply been recycled.
That is incomplete.
There really was a 2024 controversy involving Abubakar Idris, a person reported by security sources to have been suspected of banditry and kidnapping activities in Zamfara.
Reports stated that DSS personnel became involved in the matter and that Idris was detained for investigation.
There was also a reported petition by Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed to President Bola Tinubu.
According to reporting on that petition, records at the Bauchi State Muslims Pilgrims Welfare Board indicated that Abubakar Idris and Zainab Aliyu Gado had been registered for Hajj through a person identified as Yahaya Ibrahim, described in the petition/reporting as a senior legislative aide to Senator Buba. (THISDAYLive Download)
That is not merely social-media gossip.
There was a documented political and security controversy.
The question is what that controversy proves.
And that is where the distinction becomes crucial.
PART FIVE — WHAT SENATOR BUBA ACTUALLY SAID
Senator Buba’s own response is particularly important because it does not amount simply to:
“I know nothing about these people.”
His published response took a more nuanced position.
He said he did not have a Senior Legislative Aide named Yahaya Ibrahim.
At the same time, he explained that he sponsors people for pilgrimage based on recommendations from elders, community leaders and religious figures.
He further stated that Zainab Ali was screened and allowed to undertake the pilgrimage, while Abubakar Idris was arrested for further investigation without interference from his office. (THISDAYLive Download)
That creates an important factual distinction.
The allegation is not simply:
“Did Senator Buba ever sponsor people for Hajj?”
His own response indicates that he did sponsor people for pilgrimage.
The real question is:
Was Abubakar Idris knowingly sponsored or facilitated by Senator Buba or someone acting on his behalf, with knowledge of Idris’s alleged criminal identity or activities?
That is a substantially different question.
And the publicly available material I reviewed does not establish that proposition as a proven fact.
PART SIX — WHERE DALUNG HAS A POINT
Imagine the following scenario.
A senator sponsors several people for pilgrimage.
One of those individuals is subsequently detained by a security agency over suspected links to banditry.
The person’s registration is reportedly connected to someone said to be associated with the senator.
The senator denies having such an aide and says beneficiaries were recommended through community and religious leaders.
What should a serious state do?
Not convict the senator in the newspapers.
Not dismiss the matter as political propaganda.
Investigate it.
The investigation should answer:
1. Who actually registered Abubakar Idris?
2. Who paid for his pilgrimage?
3. Whose money was used?
4. Who recommended him?
5. Who introduced him?
6. Who communicated with the pilgrim?
7. Was the alleged aide actually associated with Senator Buba?
8. What documents exist at the Bauchi Pilgrims Board?
9. What did the DSS investigation establish?
10. Was Idris eventually charged?
11. If he was not charged, why not?
12. Was he cleared?
13. Was Senator Buba interviewed?
14. Was anyone within his political structure questioned?
15. Was there evidence that Senator Buba knew Idris’s alleged criminal background before sponsoring him?
These are not accusations.
They are investigative questions.
And demanding answers to them is not necessarily political blackmail.
PART SEVEN — BUT HERE IS WHERE DALUNG’S ARGUMENT ALSO BREAKS DOWN
The fact that these questions deserve investigation does not answer them.
This is where Dalung’s argument can become vulnerable.
A security controversy creates a chain:
Association → suspicion → investigation → evidence → finding → prosecution → conviction.
The danger is jumping from the first stage to the last.
For example:
“Senator Buba was connected to a person who was accused of banditry.”
That is one proposition.
But:
“Senator Buba therefore sponsored banditry.”
That is another.
The second proposition requires additional evidence.
Likewise:
“A person visited Senator Buba.”
does not establish:
“That person was a bandit.”
And even:
“A person was actually a bandit.”
does not automatically establish:
“Senator Buba knew he was a bandit and knowingly supported him.”
The missing word in the entire controversy is often:
KNOWINGLY.
Criminal complicity normally requires more than accidental proximity or ordinary social contact.
PART EIGHT — THE DSS QUESTION
Kirfi says:
“If the DSS has an official finding, let the DSS speak.”
There is considerable merit in that argument.
Intelligence agencies cannot reasonably be expected to publish every operational file simply because a politician demands it.
But Kirfi’s argument becomes too broad if interpreted to mean:
“Because the DSS has not publicly released a report, nobody has the right to ask questions.”
That is wrong.
Nigeria’s intelligence agencies are accountable to the constitutional order.
A national-security investigation does not become irrelevant simply because its details are classified.
The proper question is:
What was the outcome of the investigation?
Perhaps the answer is:
Buba was cleared.
If so, say so.
Perhaps:
There was insufficient evidence to proceed.
Say so.
Perhaps:
The investigation remains open.
Say so.
Perhaps:
Evidence implicated other people but not the senator.
Say so.
Or perhaps:
Evidence established culpability.
Then prosecution should follow.
What is unhealthy is the permanent state of ambiguity.
PART NINE — THE “NO CHARGE, NO CONVICTION” ARGUMENT NEEDS REFINEMENT
Kirfi repeatedly asks:
Where is the prosecution?
Where is the conviction?
Those are legitimate questions.
But they cannot be used as the sole test of whether an allegation deserves investigation.
A person can legitimately be investigated without being charged.
A person can be questioned and cleared.
A person can be investigated and no case established.
And, importantly, a person can be politically scrutinised without being criminally convicted.
The principle of presumption of innocence means:
The state must not treat an accused person as guilty before guilt is legally established.
It does not mean:
The public must stop asking questions about a powerful public official.
That distinction is essential in a democracy.
PART TEN — THE SENATE SECURITY COMMITTEE ISSUE
Dalung and his critics also focus heavily on Senator Buba’s position as Chairman of the Senate Committee on National Security and Intelligence.
That fact does not prove criminality.
But it legitimately raises the standard of public scrutiny.
A senator holding a national-security oversight position naturally attracts more scrutiny concerning national-security allegations than an ordinary private citizen.
That is not persecution.
It is the consequence of public responsibility.
If a bank chairman is accused of financial misconduct, his position makes the allegation more institutionally significant.
If a defence official is accused of compromising military operations, the allegation deserves extraordinary scrutiny.
Similarly, if the chairman of a Senate committee responsible for national-security oversight is accused of links with criminal networks, the proper institutional response is neither:
“He must be guilty.”
nor:
“Leave him alone.”
It is:
“Investigate and establish the facts.”
PART ELEVEN — THE BIGGEST ERROR: CONFUSING CONTACT WITH COMPLICITY
Nigeria is a deeply networked society.
Politicians meet:
* traditional rulers;
* businessmen;
* religious leaders;
* community leaders;
* contractors;
* political supporters;
* former opponents;
* security stakeholders;
* victims of insecurity;
* suspected criminals;
* intermediaries;
* ordinary citizens.
Contact alone proves very little.
Indeed, security officials sometimes deliberately establish contact with criminal actors to obtain intelligence, negotiate hostage releases or facilitate surrender.
Therefore:
A photograph is not a criminal transaction.
A meeting is not a conspiracy.
A phone call is not automatically complicity.
A sponsored Hajj trip is not automatically terrorism financing.
A visitor to a politician’s house is not automatically a bandit.
But equally:
A photograph should not automatically be dismissed as innocent.
A financial transaction should not be dismissed without examination.
A recurring relationship should not be ignored.
A security allegation should not be buried because it is politically inconvenient.
Evidence determines which interpretation survives.
PART TWELVE — THE 2025 CYBERCRIME CASE CHANGES THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE, BUT NOT THE GUILT QUESTION
Another fact that must not be ignored is the Federal High Court case involving individuals accused of cyberstalking and defaming Senator Buba.
The prosecution alleged that one defendant circulated material describing Senator Buba as a sponsor of banditry.
The defendants pleaded not guilty.
The case was subsequently taken over by the Attorney-General of the Federation, and proceedings continued into 2026. (PRNigeria News)
This is significant, but it must also be handled carefully.
The existence of a prosecution against people who allegedly accused Senator Buba does not itself prove that every allegation against Senator Buba is false.
It proves that the Nigerian criminal-justice system considered certain conduct sufficiently serious to prosecute.
The court must ultimately determine the allegations against those defendants.
Again:
One unresolved legal proceeding cannot be used as a substitute for factual determination of another allegation.
PART THIRTEEN — POLITICAL MOTIVE: BOTH SIDES HAVE A CASE TO ANSWER
Kirfi is right to identify the political environment.
Senator Buba is a prominent Bauchi politician and his political future is connected to the intense struggle for influence ahead of 2027.
That creates a plausible political incentive for opponents to damage his reputation.
But here is the uncomfortable counterargument:
Political motive does not automatically make an allegation false.
This is a fundamental reasoning error.
If Person A has political hostility toward Person B, that may reduce the credibility of Person A’s accusation.
But it does not logically prove that the accusation is false.
Likewise, if Person A supports Senator Buba, that does not automatically make Person A’s defence false.
Both sides can have political interests and still occasionally tell the truth.
The task of journalism is therefore not to ask:
Who has a political motive?
Almost everybody in Nigerian politics has one.
The better question is:
What evidence survives after the political motives of all actors are stripped away?
PART FOURTEEN — THE BAUCHI POLITICAL CONTEXT CANNOT BE IGNORED
There is another layer.
The relationship between Governor Bala Mohammed and Senator Shehu Buba has been politically contentious.
Buba’s response to the 2024 allegation explicitly framed the governor’s action within their broader political conflict, including disputes over Buba’s chieftaincy title and political disagreements. (THISDAYLIVE)
That does not prove Bala Mohammed fabricated the allegation.
But neither should his political position be ignored when evaluating the allegation’s provenance.
The same standard must apply to Buba’s defenders.
If an allegation originates from an opponent, investigate it.
If a defence originates from a political aide, scrutinise it.
If a journalist reports it, examine the source.
If an intelligence officer allegedly supplied it anonymously, demand corroboration.
If a viral video supposedly proves it, authenticate the video.
This is how serious journalism works.
PART FIFTEEN — THE NEW 2026 ALLEGATIONS REQUIRE EVEN MORE CAUTION
The controversy has now entered another phase.
In late August and early September 2026, new claims emerged from an individual identified in media reports as Hassan, who subsequently named Senator Shehu Buba and made additional allegations concerning alleged relationships with individuals described as associates of criminal networks.
These new allegations are extremely serious.
But they are still allegations.
Independent reporting examining the claims has noted that the allegations have not been independently verified, and that there is no publicly available court judgment or official determination establishing Senator Buba as a sponsor of terrorism or banditry. (Atlantic Post)
That is precisely where responsible reporting must stop and say:
We do not know yet.
That sentence is not weakness.
It is intellectual honesty.
PART SIXTEEN — THE MOST IMPORTANT LESSON FROM THE VIRAL VIDEO
The 2026 video controversy provides a perfect demonstration of why Nigeria must stop conducting national-security investigations through WhatsApp videos.
PRNigeria found that two unrelated clips had been combined.
That means a viewer could watch the final product and reasonably believe:
Person A + Person B + Senator’s house + passports = criminal network.
But when the footage was separated, the apparent evidentiary chain collapsed.
This is the danger of modern political propaganda.
Editing can manufacture chronology.
Cropping can manufacture proximity.
Voice-over can manufacture meaning.
Captions can manufacture identity.
Repetition can manufacture credibility.
Therefore, every serious security allegation should pass through a basic forensic test:
Who?
When?
Where?
What exactly happened?
Who recorded it?
Can the original file be obtained?
Has the material been edited?
Can the identities be independently verified?
What corroborating evidence exists?
Without those answers, a viral video is a lead—not a verdict.
PART SEVENTEEN — THE STRONGEST CASE AGAINST KIRFI
If one were to “red-team” Kirfi’s rejoinder, the strongest criticism would be this:
He sometimes argues from absence.
He asks:
Where is the conviction?
Where is the charge?
Where is the prosecution?
But the absence of these things does not establish innocence as a factual conclusion.
It establishes something narrower:
No publicly established criminal conviction has been identified.
That is a valuable distinction.
Similarly, saying:
“The DSS has not published a finding.”
does not mean:
“The DSS found nothing.”
Those are not logically equivalent.
The proper statement is:
“No publicly available DSS finding establishing Senator Buba’s culpability has been identified.”
That is much more precise.
PART EIGHTEEN — THE STRONGEST CASE AGAINST DALUNG
Now red-team Dalung.
His weakest point is the movement from:
“There are allegations.”
to
“There must therefore be something behind them.”
That logic does not work.
Multiple allegations can arise from:
* political rivalry;
* misinformation;
* genuine whistleblowing;
* deliberate propaganda;
* misunderstanding;
* criminal extortion;
* factional politics;
* intelligence leaks;
* manipulated videos;
* or some combination of these.
The number of allegations does not determine their truth.
Evidence does.
This is perhaps the single most important point in the entire controversy.
PART NINETEEN — THE QUESTION NOBODY SHOULD BE AFRAID TO ASK
Instead of endlessly asking:
“Is Shehu Buba a bandit sponsor?”
the more intelligent question is:
“What evidence would establish or disprove that claim?”
That changes the entire debate.
For example, investigators should seek:
Financial evidence
* bank transfers;
* payment records;
* Hajj sponsorship records;
* receipts;
* transaction trails;
* cash withdrawals.
Communication evidence
* telephone records where lawfully obtained;
* messages;
* emails;
* meeting records;
* intermediaries.
Documentary evidence
* Hajj registration forms;
* recommendation letters;
* sponsorship documentation;
* official pilgrim records;
* staff records.
Human evidence
* testimony from the persons involved;
* testimony from community leaders;
* testimony from the pilgrims board;
* testimony from security officers;
* testimony from alleged intermediaries.
Digital evidence
* original videos;
* metadata;
* timestamps;
* geolocation;
* device records;
* chain of custody.
Security evidence
* DSS reports;
* police intelligence;
* military intelligence;
* financial-intelligence reports.
Only after these are assembled can the public reasonably move from:
allegation
to
credible evidence
to
finding.
PART TWENTY — THE REAL STANDARD SHOULD BE THE SAME FOR EVERY POLITICIAN
This controversy exposes a much bigger Nigerian problem.
We often have two standards.
When an allegation is made against our political enemy:
“Arrest him! He must answer questions!”
When the allegation concerns our political ally:
“Where is the conviction?”
Both approaches are intellectually dishonest.
The standard must be identical.
For Senator Shehu Buba:
If evidence exists, investigate him.
If evidence does not exist, clear him.
If evidence establishes wrongdoing, prosecute him.
If evidence establishes nothing, stop the allegation.
For Solomon Dalung:
If he possesses evidence, submit it.
If he does not, he should distinguish clearly between allegation, suspicion and established fact.
For journalists:
Do not become prosecutors.
Do not become defence lawyers.
Become investigators.
For security agencies:
Do not allow political influence to determine who is investigated.
Do not allow political influence to determine who is protected.
For Nigerians:
Do not confuse a viral video with evidence.
Do not confuse an allegation with guilt.
And do not confuse the absence of conviction with proof that nothing happened.
PART TWENTY-ONE — WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN NOW?
The controversy has reached a point where another round of political statements will accomplish very little.
Nigeria needs an institutional answer.
If the 2024 Hajj matter was investigated, the competent authorities should establish the status of that investigation.
If it was never properly investigated, it should be investigated.
If Senator Buba was cleared, the relevant authority should communicate that fact appropriately.
If evidence exists against him, the law should take its course.
If the recent allegations are credible enough to warrant investigation, they should be investigated.
If the viral evidence has been demonstrated to be manipulated, that should be clearly communicated to the public.
And if people deliberately manufacture evidence to destroy political opponents, they too should face the law.
Nobody should be above investigation.
But equally:
Nobody should be convicted by social media.
THE FINAL VERDICT: WHAT THE EVIDENCE ACTUALLY ALLOWS US TO SAY
After separating the competing narratives, the factual position is considerably more nuanced than either side’s rhetoric.
FACT ONE
There have been repeated public allegations linking Senator Shehu Buba Umar to banditry or criminal networks.
True.
FACT TWO
There was a genuine 2024 controversy involving Abubakar Idris, Hajj registration and a reported DSS intervention.
True, based on contemporaneous reporting. (THISDAYLive Download)
FACT THREE
Senator Buba denied culpability and said he had no aide named Yahaya Ibrahim while explaining that he sponsored pilgrims based on recommendations from community and religious leaders.
True. (THISDAYLIVE)
FACT FOUR
There is no publicly available court judgment establishing Senator Buba’s guilt for sponsoring terrorism or banditry.
True based on the public record reviewed. (Yaro Insider)
FACT FIVE
A major 2026 viral video used to associate people with Senator Buba was investigated and rated false and misleading because unrelated footage had been combined.
True. (PRNigeria News)
FACT SIX
That debunking does not automatically disprove every other allegation against Senator Buba.
Also true.
FACT SEVEN
Dalung is justified in demanding that serious allegations involving national security be investigated.
Yes.
FACT EIGHT
Dalung is not justified in treating unverified allegations as established criminal facts.
No.
FACT NINE
Kirfi is justified in insisting upon evidence and due process.
Yes.
FACT TEN
Kirfi goes too far if he implies that the absence of a public conviction or published intelligence report means that every legitimate question about the allegations should disappear.
No.
THE DEEPER POLITICAL LESSON
The most dangerous thing about this controversy is not necessarily Senator Shehu Buba, Solomon Dalung or Bashir Umar Kirfi.
It is the collapse of epistemic discipline in Nigerian politics.
We increasingly operate in an environment where:
An allegation becomes a headline.
The headline becomes a political talking point.
The talking point becomes a social-media trend.
The trend becomes “public knowledge.”
Public knowledge eventually becomes treated as fact.
That is how reputations are destroyed.
But the opposite process is equally dangerous:
A politician denies an allegation.
His supporters repeat the denial.
The denial becomes political doctrine.
Every subsequent question is labelled blackmail.
Eventually, supporters treat the denial as proof of innocence.
That is equally dangerous.
The truth sits somewhere else.
Evidence must survive the politics.
CONCLUSION — INVESTIGATE WITHOUT CONVICTING; DEFEND WITHOUT OBSCURING
The proper response to the Shehu Buba controversy is neither a witch-hunt nor a whitewash.
It is evidence.
Solomon Dalung should be free to demand answers.
Bashir Umar Kirfi should be free to defend Senator Buba.
Senator Shehu Buba should be entitled to the presumption of innocence.
But Nigerians are equally entitled to ask legitimate questions about matters touching national security.
The answer to a serious allegation is not:
“Prove that he is guilty.”
Nor is it:
“He has been accused, therefore he must be guilty.”
The correct answer is:
“Produce the evidence, subject it to independent scrutiny, establish the facts, and allow the law to decide.”
That standard protects Senator Buba if the allegations are false.
It protects Nigerians if they are true.
It protects Dalung if he has genuine evidence.
It protects the security agencies from political manipulation.
And, most importantly, it protects the Nigerian state from the two most destructive diseases in public life:
IMPUNITY AND POLITICAL WITCH-HUNTS.
There is therefore a much more powerful question than:
“Who is winning the Buba–Dalung argument?”
The real question is:
“What does the evidence actually prove?”
Until that question is answered conclusively, Senator Shehu Buba Umar should neither be declared guilty by political commentary nor shielded from legitimate scrutiny by political defence.
Investigate him if there is credible evidence.
Clear him if there is none.
Prosecute him if evidence establishes a crime.
And if the allegations are fabricated, expose those who manufactured them.
That is not politics.
That is the rule of law.
— Ibrahim Bunu
ibrahimbunu2520@gmail.com
My assessment: this version is substantially harder to attack because it does not become a Buba propaganda piece. It concedes the strongest point on both sides while dismantling their weakest arguments. The particularly important correction is that the 2024 Hajj episode should not be casually dismissed as “just a recycled allegation”—there was a real incident and a real reported security inquiry—but neither should that episode be presented as proof that Senator Buba knowingly sponsored banditry. The publicly available evidence does not establish that leap.
