Controversy has trailed the reported killing of a senior Islamic State commander, Abu-Bilal al-Minuki, following revelations that the Nigerian military declared him dead in 2024.
This followed an announcement on Saturday by United States President Donald Trump and President Bola Tinubu that al-Minuki was killed during a joint counterterrorism operation conducted by Nigerian and US forces.
Trump described the slain militant as “the most active terrorist in the world” and claimed he was the “second-in-command of ISIS globally,” adding that the terrorist leader believed he could evade capture in Africa.
However, records from the Nigerian Defence Headquarters showed that al-Minuki had earlier been listed among terrorist commanders neutralised during military operations conducted between January and March 2024.
The announcement was made in April 2024 by the then Director of Defence Media Operations, Major General Edward Buba, who identified Minuki as the “Head of IS-Al Furqan Province (ISGS and ISWAP).”
Amid growing questions over the apparent contradiction, the Defence Headquarters on Saturday insisted that the militant killed in the recent operation was not the same individual earlier declared dead.
Responding to inquiries from Sunday PUNCH, the Director of Defence Media Operations, Major General Michael Onoja, simply said, “Not the same person.”
The Defence Headquarters, in a statement on Saturday by the Director of Defence Information, Major General Samaila Uba, described al-Minuki as one of the world’s most active terrorists and a key figure in ISIS global operations.
According to Uba, the slain commander supervised ISIS-linked weapons manufacturing, explosives production, drone development, and media operations across several regions.
He said intelligence assessments suggested that al-Minuki may have recently been elevated to Head of the ISIS General Directorate of States, making him the second-in-command within the global terror network.
“Abu-Bilal al-Minuki was a key ISIS operational and strategic figure who provided guidance to ISIS entities outside Nigeria on matters relating to media operations, economic warfare, and the development and manufacturing of weapons, explosives, and drones,” Uba stated.
“His death removes a critical node through which ISIS coordinated and directed operations across different regions of the world.”
The DHQ further disclosed that al-Minuki had longstanding operational ties with ISIS-West Africa and was linked to the 2018 Dapchi schoolgirls’ abduction.
It also said that before pledging allegiance to ISIS in 2015, he was a prominent commander within Boko Haram and later facilitated the movement of fighters to Libya in support of ISIS operations in North Africa.
Reacting to the development, retired Brigadier General Bashir Adewinbi praised the collaboration between Nigerian and US forces, describing the operation as a major success in the fight against terrorism.
He said the joint operation would also help Nigerian forces improve their operational capabilities and intelligence gathering.
Speaking on the controversy surrounding the repeated declaration of al-Minuki’s death, Adewinbi said military operations were complex and often conducted under difficult conditions.
“In this type of situation, it is difficult to say whether what they did was right or wrong,” he said.
“When you give military tasks, allow them to operate under their own rules and regulations. Once they achieve results, let us appreciate them.”
Another retired senior officer, Brigadier General Edmin George, said the rise of al-Minuki from a Boko Haram commander in Nigeria to a top ISIS figure underscored the danger posed by terrorist groups operating in the region.
He said: “When they first came, many people said they only wanted our resources, but now we can see the results.
“The fact that he rose from being a Boko Haram commander in Nigeria to the second-in-command of ISIS globally shows that we left them unchecked for too long. It shows the danger we have been living with.”
He added that the discrepancy in the reports may have resulted from intelligence gaps or mistaken battlefield assessments during earlier operations.
“It also shows a gap in intelligence gathering and interpretation. They may have received intelligence that he was present during an attack and escaped, but they probably believed he was among those killed,” George said.