Nigeria’s Defence Strategy Hinges on Intelligence-Driven Operations, Says CDS Oluyede

The Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Olufemi Oluyede, has reiterated the Nigerian military’s commitment to an intelligence-led operational framework, declaring that intelligence gathering and military operations will continue to reinforce one another as the Armed Forces intensify efforts to combat terrorism and other security threats across the country.

Speaking through the Director of Defence Media Operations at the Defence Headquarters (DHQ), Major General Michael Onoja, the CDS emphasised that the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN) are operating within a continuous and deliberate intelligence–operations feedback loop. According to him, actionable intelligence informs military operations, while the outcomes of those operations, in turn, generate fresh intelligence to guide subsequent engagements.

“Our intelligence drives operations, and our operations support intelligence,” General Oluyede stated, assuring Nigerians that this strategic cycle would remain intact throughout 2026 and beyond. He described the approach as central to the military’s evolving doctrine, particularly in an era where non-state actors employ asymmetric tactics, blending into civilian populations and exploiting difficult terrain.

The statement came amid growing public scrutiny of Nigeria’s counterterrorism efforts, especially in the North-West and North-East regions, where banditry, insurgency, and transnational criminal networks continue to pose serious challenges. Major General Onoja also confirmed that the Armed Forces recently collaborated with the United States military in a targeted airstrike that hit terrorist enclaves in parts of Sokoto State. The operation, he said, was conducted based on credible intelligence and formed part of broader efforts to dismantle terrorist command-and-control structures in the region.

According to defence officials, the joint operation reflects Nigeria’s increasing reliance on strategic partnerships, intelligence sharing, and advanced surveillance capabilities to improve operational precision. These collaborations are aimed at reducing collateral damage, disrupting terrorist logistics, and neutralising high-value targets without exposing ground troops to unnecessary risk.

However, despite these assurances, public reaction to the military’s claims has been sharply divided. Many Nigerians, particularly on social media platforms and online forums, have expressed deep scepticism, arguing that repeated declarations of intelligence-driven success have not translated into sustained security on the ground. Critics point to continued attacks on communities, kidnappings along major highways, and the persistent presence of notorious bandit leaders as evidence of systemic failures within the security architecture.

Some commentators argue that if intelligence is truly effective, known terrorist commanders should not be able to operate openly or evade capture for extended periods. Others question whether intelligence failures are the result of technical limitations, inadequate inter-agency coordination, or internal compromise within the security system itself.

On the other hand, defenders of the military contend that modern counterinsurgency warfare is complex and cannot be reduced to simplistic metrics such as territorial control alone. They argue that intelligence operations are often covert by nature and that successes are not always immediately visible to the public. According to this view, patience, sustained pressure, and institutional reforms are necessary for long-term results.

Security analysts also note that intelligence-led warfare requires more than airstrikes and kinetic operations. It depends heavily on community cooperation, human intelligence, technological investment, and political will. Without trust between civilians and security forces, intelligence gathering becomes significantly more difficult, allowing criminal networks to regenerate even after successful operations.

General Oluyede’s remarks, therefore, reflect both an assurance and a challenge. While the military leadership insists that the intelligence–operations cycle remains unbroken, public confidence remains fragile, shaped by years of insecurity and unmet expectations. The coming months will be critical in determining whether this strategy can deliver tangible improvements in safety, especially in regions that have borne the brunt of violence.

As Nigeria enters another year confronting complex security threats, the effectiveness of intelligence-driven operations will likely remain under intense public scrutiny. Ultimately, success will be measured not by official statements alone, but by the lived experiences of citizens across the country—whether roads become safer, communities more secure, and the grip of terrorism finally loosened.