Confusion has emerged over the reported killing of senior Islamic State commander Abu-Bilal al-Minuki after records showed the Nigerian military had already declared him dead during operations conducted in 2024.
The controversy followed announcements on Saturday by US President Donald Trump and Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu that al-Minuki was killed in a joint counterterrorism operation involving Nigerian and American forces.
Trump described the militant leader as “the most active terrorist in the world” and claimed he had served as the “second-in-command of ISIS globally”, saying the commander believed he could evade capture by operating from Africa.
However, documents from the Nigerian Defence Headquarters showed that al-Minuki had previously been listed among terrorist commanders neutralised during military operations carried out between January and March 2024.
The earlier announcement was made in April last year 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)”.
As questions intensified over the apparent contradiction, the Defence Headquarters insisted on Saturday that the militant killed in the recent operation was not the same individual earlier reported dead.
Responding to inquiries, the current Director of Defence Media Operations, Major General Michael Onoja, said only: “Not the same person.”
In a separate statement, the Director of Defence Information, Major General Samaila Uba, described al-Minuki as one of the world’s most active terrorists and a central figure in ISIS global operations.
According to the military, the slain commander oversaw ISIS-linked weapons manufacturing, explosives production, drone development and media operations across multiple regions.
The Defence Headquarters said intelligence assessments suggested that al-Minuki may recently have been elevated to head of the ISIS General Directorate of States, effectively making him the second-highest ranking figure within the global extremist 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 said.
“His death removes a critical node through which ISIS coordinated and directed operations across different regions of the world.”
The military also linked al-Minuki to the 2018 abduction of schoolgirls in Dapchi and said he had longstanding ties with ISIS-West Africa.
According to the statement, al-Minuki was previously a senior commander within Boko Haram before pledging allegiance to ISIS in 2015 and facilitating the transfer of fighters to Libya to support the group’s North African operations.
Retired Brigadier General Bashir Adewinbi praised the collaboration between Nigerian and US forces, describing the operation as a major breakthrough in counterterrorism efforts.
He said the partnership would strengthen the operational capabilities and intelligence-gathering capacity of Nigerian forces.
Addressing the controversy surrounding the repeated reports of al-Minuki’s death, Adewinbi said military operations were often conducted under highly complex battlefield 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 al-Minuki’s rise from a Boko Haram commander in Nigeria to a senior ISIS operative illustrated the scale of the threat posed by extremist groups in the region.
“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,” he said. “It shows the danger we have been living with.”
George added that the discrepancy between the two announcements may have stemmed from intelligence failures or mistaken battlefield assessments during previous operations.
“It also shows a gap in intelligence gathering and interpretation,” he said. “They may have received intelligence that he was present during an attack and escaped, but they probably believed he was among those killed.”
