INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: THE BRIGADIER GENERAL UBA AFFAIR — AMBUSH, RUMORS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA

1. The Incident: What Happened According to the Army

On 14 November 2025, troops of the Nigerian Army’s 25 Task Force Brigade, led by Brigadier-General M. Uba, were returning from a patrol mission around Wajiroko in Damboa LGA, Borno State, having just conducted an operation near the fringes of the Sambisa Forest. 

During the return, the convoy came under a heavy ambush by insurgents, reportedly ISWAP (Islamic State West Africa Province). 

In that clash, at least two soldiers and two members of the Civilian Joint Task Force (CJTF) died. 

The Army says that under Brig-Gen. Uba’s leadership, the troops “fought through” the ambush using “superior firepower,” causing the insurgents to withdraw in disarray. 

Importantly, the Army denies that Brig-Gen. Uba was ever abducted. 

2. The Rumors and Viral Narrative

Almost immediately after the incident, viral reports began circulating claiming that Brig-Gen. Uba had been captured by ISWAP. 

Some versions of the story go further: they claim that he recorded a video message from inside the forest, shared his live GPS location, and even made a video call under duress (reportedly to a dry cleaner), warning them not to alert anyone. 

These reports suggest that his phone’s location was “traced” and that he became a high-value target for terrorists as a result. 

Later, there were even claims (mostly on social platforms) that he was killed by ISWAP after being recaptured in the forest. 

According to some of these sources, his final messages — shared via WhatsApp — indicated his phone battery was at 31%, and he was trying to signal an aircraft by raising his cap when he saw it. 

3. The Official Pushback

The Nigerian Army was quick to push back against the abduction narrative:

Lt.-Col. Appolonia Anele, acting Director of Army Public Relations, described the reports as “entirely false” and part of a “fake narrative.” 

The Army insists that Brig.-Gen. Uba led his troops back to base, contradicting claims that he disappeared. 

The Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Waidi Shaibu, praised the troops for their bravery in one of the most dangerous conflict zones, commiserating with the families of the fallen. 

According to the Army, the rumors about Uba’s abduction were so misleading that they urged the public to rely on verified military communications, not unverified social media stories. 

In addition, the Army states that 17 motorcycles belonging to the convoy were seized by the insurgents during the ambush. 

4. Independent and Analyst Views

Security expert Zagazola Makama claimed to have verified, through military sources and ground checks, that the rumors of abduction were false. 

According to him, while there was “initial confusion” about missing personnel, many of those unaccounted for returned safely. 

Makama also says that the ambush happened during daylight hours (between ~13:30 and 16:00), not at night, contradicting some viral reports of a nighttime kidnapping. 

The general himself (or at least a video circulated under his identity) reportedly stated he was alive and unharmed and was making his way back to base. 

5. The Role of Social Media: Amplifier and Risk Vector

This case is a strong example of how social media can amplify unverified or false narratives, especially in conflict zones:

1. Speed and virality: The story of Uba’s abduction spread rapidly — before any independent, on-the-ground verification could be done.

2. Confusion in chaotic settings: In the aftermath of an ambush, everyone is disoriented, and it’s hard to track who is where. That uncertainty made it easy for rumors to take hold.

3. High-stakes propaganda: For insurgent groups like ISWAP, the idea of capturing or killing a senior officer is a powerful propaganda tool. Even if untrue, such claims can demoralize the military and intimidate civilians.

4. Verification challenge: Local journalists or fact-checkers may not have immediate access to frontline areas. Meanwhile, social media intermediaries may lack the means (or the will) to fully verify before sharing.

5. Misdirected rescue: If the reported “live location” was used by either the military or media, it could (in theory) have compromised operations or put Uba at greater risk. Whether that happened is not confirmed.

6. Assessment: What’s Most Likely (Based on Evidence)

Putting all the pieces together, here’s a reasoned assessment:

There was a genuine ambush: Multiple reliable sources (and the Army’s own statements) confirm that troops were attacked, and some personnel died. 

Brig.-Gen. Uba likely was not abducted: The strongest—and most consistent—claim from the Army is that he “led his troops back” to base, and there has been no publicly verified proof (e.g., video from ISWAP) of him being held. 

Death claims are unconfirmed: Despite some media and social reports, there is no credible, independently verified announcement (e.g., from the Nigerian Army or ISWAP) confirming that Uba was killed by terrorists.

Social media played a central but problematic role: It seems to have accelerated a narrative that was not fully verified, possibly inflaming tensions and raising security risks.

7. Broader Implications

This incident has significant implications for Nigeria’s security situation and media landscape:

Risk of misinformation in conflict zones: Even a high-profile figure like a Brigadier General can be the subject of wild, unverified social media claims.

Propaganda vulnerability: Terrorist groups may benefit (or be perceived to benefit) from such reports, whether or not they are true.

Need for better military communication: The Army’s swift rebuttal shows how critical it is to provide clear, verified statements in real time. But perhaps more proactive, on-the-ground media liaison is needed.

Public trust: Over time, repeated false alarms or contradictory stories could erode public trust in both media and the military.

CONCLUSION 

The Brig.-Gen. Uba story is a cautionary tale: in today’s interconnected world, a narrative can go from “missing” to “abducted” to “killed” in hours, driven by social media, speculation, and fear — regardless of what really happened on the ground.

While the Army insists that Uba returned safely, many key questions remain unanswered, particularly around the origin of the kidnapping claims, the role of viral content, and whether any part of the narrative emerged from genuine leaks or misinformation.

As of now, the death claim remains unproven, and the most responsible reading of the available evidence is that the abduction story was likely exaggerated or false. But the very fact that it gained such traction highlights the dangerous intersection of conflict, communication, and rumor in Nigeria’s current security context.

---

Mal. Ahmad M. Salihu 

Work with the 

Bauchi State Ministry of Education