Tribune Editorial Board, June 30, 2026
Terrorism is sustained not only by those who wield weapons but also by those who quietly move the money that keeps violence alive. By exposing an alleged ISIS financing network with Nigerian links, the United States has handed Nigeria a critical opportunity, and responsibility, to prove that no financier of terror is beyond the reach of its institutions. It has thrown down the gauntlet. By publicly identifying individuals and companies allegedly linked to the financing of ISIS across Europe, the Middle East, and West Africa, it has not merely imposed sanctions; it has presented Nigeria with a test of its resolve against terrorism financing.
This is no ordinary diplomatic statement. The allegations are detailed. They identify a Nigerian national, name companies, specific locations, and the alleged role of bureaux de change in moving funds for one of the world’s deadliest terrorist organisations. The United States has done what any responsible nation should do when confronted with credible intelligence. It has sanctioned the suspects, frozen assets under its jurisdiction, and alerted the international financial system. The question now is simple: What will Nigeria do?
The Central Bank of Nigeria deserves recognition for issuing a directive to financial institutions to freeze accounts linked to the designated persons and entities. That was a necessary first step. But a circular, no matter how well drafted, is not an investigation. Freezing accounts is not the same as dismantling a terrorist financing network. If anything, it should merely mark the beginning of a much broader national response. The allegations should immediately trigger coordinated action across Nigeria’s security and financial intelligence architecture.
The Department of State Services (DSS) should already be investigating the national security implications of the allegations. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) should be tracing financial transactions, identifying beneficiaries, examining company records, and preparing criminal cases where the evidence warrants it. The Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) should be analysing every suspicious transaction, monitoring compliance by financial institutions, and disseminating actionable intelligence to law enforcement agencies. The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) should be working with foreign intelligence partners to expose the international dimensions of the network, while the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) should determine whether these financial channels have supported terrorist operations against Nigerian troops or communities.
Above all, the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) must assume visible leadership. Counter-terrorism cannot succeed when agencies operate in silos. Someone must ensure that intelligence is shared promptly, investigations are coordinated, deadlines are met, and progress is monitored. The ONSA is uniquely positioned to provide that strategic oversight. Nigerians deserve to know that this case will not disappear into the bureaucracy that has too often frustrated justice in matters of national security. This is where our greatest concern lies. Nigeria has witnessed too many cases that begin with dramatic headlines, only to fade into silence. Public outrage subsides. Files gather dust. Investigations lose momentum. Witnesses disappear.
Terrorism financing is far too grave for such a familiar cycle. The authorities must stop treating these lapses as mere administrative hurdles. For the soldier in a remote outpost or the citizen in a vulnerable village, the “bureaucratic delay” of an investigation is not just a missed deadline: it is the difference between safety and a security breach. When the authorities allow these files to gather dust, they are effectively choosing to let the financial lifelines of Nigeria’s enemies remain taut, putting those who protect Nigerians at a disadvantage that is as preventable as it is tragic. If the allegations are credible enough for the United States to impose sanctions, they are certainly credible enough to warrant vigorous investigations in Nigeria.
The CBN has directed banks to freeze accounts and report suspicious transactions. That is commendable. Yet it also raises important questions. How will compliance be monitored? What happens if a bank deliberately fails to freeze an account? What sanctions await financial institutions or officials who knowingly assist designated persons? Have retrospective transaction reviews begun? Have the Nigeria Immigration Service been alerted? Have search warrants been obtained where necessary? Have investigators secured records before they can be altered or destroyed? These are not academic questions. Terrorism financing networks rarely consist of one individual acting alone. They depend on facilitators, shell companies, couriers, professional intermediaries, financial institutions, and cross-border collaborators. The individuals named by the United States may represent only a portion of a wider network. If that is so, then identifying and dismantling the broader ecosystem should become the immediate priority of Nigerian investigators.
The media must also resist attempts to be portrayed as the problem. Reporting credible developments in the fight against terrorism does not strengthen terrorists; it strengthens accountability. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether those accused of financing violence are being investigated and whether institutions charged with protecting national security are discharging their responsibilities. Nigeria has overcome enormous security challenges before. Under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, decisive action followed attacks on Nigerian soldiers. Under former President Goodluck Jonathan, extraordinary measures were adopted to recover territory from insurgents. Those episodes demonstrated that when the political will exists, the machinery of the state can move with speed and purpose.
This moment calls for that same determination. The responsibility now rests squarely with Nigeria’s institutions. The DSS must investigate. The EFCC must follow the money. The NFIU must intensify financial intelligence and monitor compliance. The NIA and DIA must unravel the wider international and operational networks. The CBN must ensure that every regulated institution obeys its directive without exception. And the ONSA must coordinate, supervise, and demand measurable results from every agency involved. Nigeria’s fight against terrorism will not be won merely on the battlefield. It will be won by cutting off the financial lifelines that sustain violence. If those who finance terror can move money with ease while the state moves at the speed of bureaucracy, then the nation weakens its own security. This is not the time for routine circulars or symbolic compliance.
It is the time for coordinated investigations, uncompromising enforcement, and transparent accountability. The nation is watching. More importantly, history is watching.
