On June 14, 2025, a brutal overnight attack devastated Yelwata village in Guma Local Government, Benue State, leaving up to 200 civilians dead and dozens of homes and IDP shelters razed. The massacre has reignited public outrage—not only against the suspected killers but over a deeper, more unsettling question: Was this avoidable? Many are asking: Even with military outposts nearby, why were lives still lost?
President Bola Tinubu rapidly ordered the country’s military and security agencies to hunt down the perpetrators, traveling days later to Makurdi, the state capital, to meet victims and demand arrests—highlighting both the urgency and the rising political pressure. Yet critics argue this transport of accountability is too late, calling attention to endemic failures in intelligence-sharing, decision-making, and responsiveness by security forces.
Amid these tensions, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, claimed that some military units were “deliberately misled” by leaked intelligence, hinting at possible insider sabotage that may have compromised operations. Just as sharply, the Defence Headquarters and field commanders publicly denied any such failure or infiltration, underscoring the complex web of blame and the urgent need for accountability in security operations.
In the wake of this tragedy, the stakes are enormous. Exposing and rectifying any gaps in command, coordination, or intelligence isn’t merely a matter of accident avoidance—it’s a matter of regaining the public’s trust and ensuring that security operations truly serve the nation. This article unpacks the allegations, responses, and what must happen next to embed accountability in security operations, ensuring that “never again” becomes reality.
Contextual Background
To truly grasp the scale and significance of the events in Benue State, we need to step back and understand both the specific incident and the long-standing context in which it’s rooted.
Overview of the Massacre
Late on June 13 through the early hours of June 14, 2025, armed gunmen attacked Yelwata and neighboring Daudu villages in Guma Local Government Area, Benue State. Reports vary, reflecting the chaotic aftermath. The Benue State Police mentioned around 45 fatalities, while local leaders and community figures—citing their own investigations—suggest up to 200 civilians killed, some alongside security personnel. International NGOs have put the death toll at a minimum of 100, and by June 16, survivors confirmed 150 fatalities, with scores still missing.
Attackers surrounded villages after dark, targeting homes and market shelters—some occupied by internally displaced persons—then set dwellings and stalls alight. Entire households, along with their livestock and harvested crops, were razed.
Geopolitical and Communal Context
These attacks are part of a chronic struggle between predominantly Christian farmers and mostly Fulani Muslim herders for dwindling arable land and water in Nigeria’s Middle Belt—a conflict dating back decades and intensifying since the late 1990s. Factors include climate-driven pasture loss, agricultural expansion, unclear land ownership, and deep-seated ethnic and religious divisions. The scale of violence has escalated: the June 13/14 attack ranks among the deadliest in recent memory in Benue.
This massacre reflects a grim pattern. Benue has seen major attacks in recent years—including the April 2022 massacre where over 25 villagers died in Guma LGA, and even earlier in 2016 with Agatu’s 300–500 fatalities. The broader national conflict has claimed over 16,000 lives since 1998.
The attack ignited a humanitarian emergency. Authorities estimate thousands—roughly 3,000—were displaced, seeking shelter in emergency camps. The death and destruction wiped out assets and livelihoods, heightening fears over food security and community survival.
Sabotage Allegations
Let’s turn to the pivotal moment when allegations of sabotage became the focal point of national attention—raising unsettling questions about accountability in security operations.
Chief of Defence Staff’s Claim
On June 20, 2025, Nigeria’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Christopher Musa, addressed the media in Abuja and made a startling claim: troops stationed near Yelwata were deliberately misled by false intelligence. According to Musa, military personnel responded to an alert of an attack in one village—only to emerge and discover that the real assault was unfolding in Yelwata and Daudu.
Musa went further, accusing locals of collusion. He alleged that community insiders not only provided precise details of troop movements—including numbers of vehicles and personnel—but actively assisted the attackers with food, shelter, even women. Crucially, this insider information purportedly enabled perpetrators to target shelters housing internally displaced persons with brutal accuracy—intimating a level of premeditated coordination that shakes confidence in intelligence protocols.
For context, General Musa cited the staggering death toll—over 200 lives lost—as evidence of attackers’ calculated planning, concluding that such precision strongly suggests a leak of operational details from within.
Public and Media Reaction
The announcement sent shockwaves through the country. Media outlets and civic groups debated: Was this a genuine internal breach or a deflection from military underperformance? Skeptics argued Musa’s statement risked framing the massacre as the civilians’ fault—and camouflaging broader intelligence and response failures.
Yet, others acknowledged the seriousness of the accusation. If true, it reveals a deep, systemic betrayal that compromises every single mission undertaken. The uproar forced national headlines and amplified a powerful demand for transparency and accountability in security operations—particularly in how intelligence is gathered, shared, and secured.
Official Military Response
Next came the military leadership’s response—balancing firm denial with appeals for unity and clarity in security operations.
Denial from Defence Headquarters
Within days of the Chief of Defence Staff’s comments, the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) issued a firm statement aimed at quashing the sabotage narrative. Brigadier‑General Tukur Gusau, Director of Defence Information, publicly dismissed the claims, describing them as “unfounded and not supported by credible evidence.”
Key highlights from DHQ’s position:
No proof of internal sabotage: The military insisted there is no evidence linking its personnel to any deliberate leaks or subversion.
Consistency in denial: DHQ reiterated that the Chief of Defence Staff also affirmed that the army had no involvement in the massacre.
Confidence in operations: The statement reaffirmed the military’s commitment to protecting civilians and upholding constitutional rule.
Independent reviews support military: DHQ cited results from independent human rights organizations that found no military complicity.
Emphasis on Broader Security Context
Beyond the rebuttal, DHQ emphasized the massacre’s roots in longstanding communal tensions, attempting to reframe the response under a wider security lens:
Farmers–herders fault lines: The military labeled the violence as part of the chronic Middle Belt conflict over land, grazing rights, ethnicity, and resources.
Socio‑economic and political drivers: DHQ identified deeper systemic causes—such as resource scarcity and weak governance—as the true root, not internal sabotage.
Holistic approach advocated by CDS: The Chief of Defence Staff urged communities and security agencies to work together more closely to prevent future tragedies.
Call for community cooperation: DHQ urged residents not to shelter criminals and to trust that security forces are there to protect law‑abiding citizens.
Independent Verification & Credible Evidence
A central pillar of DHQ’s defense was referencing external review:
Human rights reports: Independent bodies reported no link between soldiers and perpetrators.
Public trust requirement: DHQ argued that spreading unverified sabotage claims erodes morale and distracts from meaningful peacebuilding.
Accountability in Security Operations
This section dives deeply into what it takes to embed accountability in security operations, especially when military integrity comes under scrutiny in tragic events like Benue—and why it matters for public trust, effectiveness, and prevention.
Importance of Transparency
Transparent military processes are not optional—they’re foundational.
Operational clarity builds trust. When security forces openly communicate about decision-making, intelligence sources, and lessons from failures, communities feel respected rather than blamed.
Inadequate transparency limits public oversight and stokes suspicion of cover-ups or corruption, weakening civilian confidence even when no wrongdoing occurred.
Reports emphasize that weak oversight breeds disorder and unprofessional conduct—a lesson Nigeria’s military should take seriously.
Internal vs. External Oversight
“Who watches the watchers?” Accountability depends on both self-regulation and independent scrutiny.
Internal Mechanisms: Clear protocols for intelligence handling—from collection to action—help prevent leaks or misdirection. Brigadier‑General Gusau referenced independent reviews dismissing sabotage, yet didn’t outline specifics of how intelligence was verified—leaving a transparency gap.
External Oversight: Nigeria’s House Committee on Defence can summon military leaders, inspect budgets, and call for after-action reviews. Civil society and media act as watchdogs. Experts are demanding immediate repeal of blanket procurement exemptions and stronger press access. Comparative examples, like Ghana and Kenya, show legislative bodies and civilian oversight can strengthen accountability without crippling security.
Ethical and Institutional Reforms
Embedding integrity requires more than talk—it needs concrete standards and culture change.
Adopt codes of conduct aligned with global norms, clarifying legal limits and citizen rights during military operations.
Set up an Inspector-General or equivalent watchdog within the military to investigate misconduct and present public findings.
Introduce merit-based leadership appointments and embedded field courts-martial to ensure discipline and legitimacy.
Reform intelligence: strengthen civilian–military cooperation, establish clear audits for intelligence accuracy, and train personnel in ethics, data integrity, and human-rights compliance.
Consequences of Neglecting Accountability
Ignoring these measures is dangerous and self-defeating.
Eroded Moral Authority: Sabotage claims, unexplained by transparent evidence, destroy morale—both within the ranks and among civilians.
Weakening Deterrence: Lack of trust encourages silent cooperation with attackers and ongoing intelligence vulnerabilities.
Systemic Corruption: With opaque procurement and unchecked secrecy, billions have disappeared from security budgets, fueling failed operations.
Toward Real Accountability
For accountability in security operations to take root in Nigeria, the military must:
Publicly detail its intelligence review process, including sources, verification, and lessons-learned.
Empower and resource parliamentary oversight to conduct unfiltered budget and operational audits.
Amend laws to remove blanket secrecy, especially around procurement and internal investigations.
Invest in ethical training and independent inspectorates to foster a culture of lawful restraint.
Engage local communities—if the military is seen as responsive rather than absent or overbearing, cooperation increases and sabotage risks shrink.
The Benue attack was devastating—if indeed sabotage was involved, that reveals a catastrophic failure in both operational security and intelligence protocols. If sabotage wasn’t involved, silence or ambiguity about the truth suggests the military still lacks structures that reassure the public. Only comprehensive accountability in security operations can break this cycle—healing communities, preserving human life, and restoring faith in national defense.
Next Steps & Ongoing Investigations
The military, government, and other agencies are now faced with delivering on their promises of justice and reform.
Military Pledges to Intensify Operations
Following the Chief of Defence Staff’s revelations, the military has reiterated its commitment to strengthening field presence. Troops are being redeployed into Benue’s volatile zones, with tactical support units and special forces bolstering efforts. There is active collaboration with the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), the Department of State Services (DSS), and police in shared intelligence and patrols.
The NSCDC’s leadership has confirmed that covert operatives would be embedded across the state to collect credible intelligence, targeting both known criminals and potential sabotage networks. This unified approach is aimed at reinforcing intelligence accuracy and ensuring operational cohesion across agencies.
Pending Investigations
Military’s Internal Inquiry: DHQ reports suggest an internal review is underway—examining if intelligence systems were compromised and whether protocols were breached. However, updates on findings remain limited, pending official declassification.
Independent, Third‑Party Reviews: Human rights organizations have stated they found no military complicity. Meanwhile, lawmakers and civic leaders are pushing for a parliamentary probe, with the House Committee on Defence and Army poised to summon military leadership for testimony and document reviews.
NHRC & International Oversight: The Nigeria Human Rights Commission is gathering evidence from survivors and communities. This echoes past recommendations urging transparent, lawful inquiry into mass violence.
Community Engagement & Local Cooperation
The military’s narrative now stresses shared responsibility, calling on communities to report suspicious activities in real time. However, survivors of the June massacre criticized the initial delay in response, saying soldiers arrived only after attackers had withdrawn.
To address this, field commanders have promised to establish local liaison offices, inviting community leaders to meet with security heads regularly. These meetings aim to identify credible informants, build direct communication lines, and provide real-time situational updates.
Civilian trust—built on consistent, open engagement—is essential. Without it, the danger of misinformation or complicit silence grows.
The Road Ahead
To fulfill the promise of accountability in security operations, several critical actions must follow:
Public disclosure of inquiry findings: Whether from DHQ or independent bodies, releasing a summary of investigative findings—highlighting failures and recommended reforms—will establish credibility.
Legislative oversight activation: Committees like the House Defence Committee should hold open hearings, review classified material, and demand actionable recommendations.
Human rights commission follow‑through: The NHRC should publish comprehensive, public-facing reports, supplemented by fact-based assessments and survivor testimonies.
Formalized community cooperation mechanisms: Establish trusted liaison networks and protect community informants to foster open dialogue and mutual accountability.
Policy and protocol reform: Lessons from investigations must translate into updated intelligence-sharing protocols, preventative measures for sabotage, and rapid deployment strategies for vulnerable communities.
Broader Implications
Zooming out reveals systemic lessons and opportunities for deep reform.
Lessons for Nigeria’s Security Architecture
Security coordination remains fractured. Research across Benue reveals chronic lapses: delayed response, siloed intelligence, and ineffective early-warning mechanisms—all exacerbated by poor infrastructure. When basic coordination fails, communities are left vulnerable.
Organizations like Lawyers Alert demonstrate that community policing fosters trust and significantly reduces violence in rural zones. Their success showcases how local-informed responses build resilience.
Models like the Civilian Joint Task Force and Amotekun highlight the potential of blending military capacity with local insight—provided clear accountability and legal frameworks are in place.
Policy Proposals & Reforms
Revamp security governance. Experts call for modernized weapons systems, enhanced training, and improved troop welfare to elevate professionalism and morale.
Legislate civilian oversight. Nigeria must formalize civilian control mechanisms—through strengthened parliamentary oversight, empowered NHRC investigations, and binding transparency in military budgets, procurement, and deployment.
Embed early-warning systems. Multi-tiered response units—combining military, NSCDC, local vigilante groups, and NGOs—should operate transparently in high-risk zones to detect threats before escalation.
Community-informed land governance. Decades of unresolved herder-farmer clashes stem from land use ambiguity. Policy must bridge this—incorporating grazing reserves, ranch systems, and community land interpretation—to link resource governance with security structures.
Regional cooperation and learning. Drawing on Amotekun’s legal frameworks and Civilian JTF’s grassroots intelligence success could inform a nationally consistent, legally anchored community-security model.
Global Parallels & Warnings
Nigeria’s struggle is not unique—but the stakes are. Much like peacekeeping missions in conflict zones worldwide, unchecked security agencies lead to mistrust, human rights erosion, and impunity. The Zaki-Biam massacre of 2001—where soldiers killed over 200 Tiv civilians—showed that even when official apologies followed, absence of accountability leaves wounds unhealed.
Globally, successful security stabilization relies on three pillars: clear rules bounding security forces, transparent, community-inclusive operations, and independent watchdogs empowered to act.
Why This Matters
Lives are on the line. Insecurity undermines livelihoods in farm communities.
Trust is non-negotiable. Without accountability, citizens stop cooperating. Without intel from locals, operations collapse.
The next tragedy looms. If these reforms fail, generational cycles of violence and deepening distrust will only worsen.
When tragedy strikes like the Benue massacre, the urgency isn’t just about responding—it’s about reflecting and reforming. Nigeria stands at a critical crossroads: the country can either allow this atrocity to fade into a cycle of blame and inaction or seize the moment to embed true accountability in security operations.
Final Takeaways:
Transparency is essential—auditable intelligence systems and clear reporting rebuild both public trust and operational credibility. Independent oversight isn’t optional—empowered assemblies, human rights commissions, and international observers must vet military actions. Community-integration saves lives—when locals are united with the security apparatus, situational awareness and rapid response improve dramatically. Lessons must be learned from the past—the Zaki-Biam massacre revealed absence of accountability leaves long-lasting wounds.
Your Path Ahead:
As the military finalizes its internal review and parliament and civic organizations await full disclosure, the moment demands bold commitments: legal reform to embed civilian oversight; systemic investments in ethical intelligence; and public hearings that let survivors shape how tragedies are understood and prevented.
Only through integrated, community-focused security efforts—with liabilities for failure and rewards for ethical conduct—can Nigeria finally turn the page. Accountability in security operations is not idealism—it’s essential. It’s how devastation becomes prevention, distrust becomes partnership, and vulnerability becomes resilience.
This massacre tested the nation. Accountability must be its answer—and its promise.
