Petitions to ONSA Allege Financial Irregularities, Partner Exclusion in Strategic Communication Project
Two separate correspondences to the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) have raised allegations of financial and administrative irregularities in the implementation of a strategic communication initiative involving Nigeria’s security and response agencies.
Documents obtained by PRNigeria accuse an ONSA official of sidelining organisations originally engaged for the project and altering an initial funding arrangement after the initiative commenced.
The concerns relate to the Strategic Communication Interagency Policy Committee (SCIPC), an initiative approved by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, to strengthen coordination and crisis communication among security, intelligence and emergency response agencies.
The correspondence, dated December 23, 2024, and January 23, 2026, was submitted by a non-governmental organisation led by a retired military general and a crisis communication consultant involved in the project.
Both documents identify an ONSA contact person, Zakari Mijinyawa, in connection with the alleged irregularities. PRNigeria also gathered that an anti-corruption agency examined aspects of the matter, although the outcome remains unclear.
The controversy dates back to efforts to revive the Forum of Spokespersons of Security and Response Agencies (FOSSRA), a platform that brings together spokespersons from military, security, intelligence, and emergency response institutions.
According to the December 2024 correspondence, Ribadu approved reconstituting FOSSRA into SCIPC in March 2024, following a proposal submitted by the NGO.
The petitioners said that when funding for the inaugural meeting was released to the NGO, Mijinyawa, representing ONSA, received half of the amount to cover press conferences, members’ allowances and refreshments.
The organisation retained the other half for independent research, media reviews, sentiment analysis presentations and strategic communication interventions associated with the project.
The petitioners alleged, however, that the arrangement subsequently changed.
They claimed representatives of the NGO were removed from the SCIPC WhatsApp group, stopped receiving meeting invitations, and were eventually treated largely as reporters providing ad hoc media coverage rather than partners in the initiative they helped establish.
More significantly, the December 2024 correspondence alleged that the original funding arrangement, under which 50 per cent was allocated to the NGO and its activities, was subsequently reduced to less than 25 per cent, while the ONSA representative allegedly “cornered” more than 75 per cent.
The petitioners further claimed they were excluded from the monthly meeting they had proposed and were not compensated for work undertaken between September and December 2024, despite submitting evidence of their activities to ONSA.
They consequently appealed to Ribadu to intervene and ensure that the implementation issues were addressed and outstanding payments for services rendered were settled.
Read Also:
More than a year later, a second correspondence dated January 23, 2026, renewed the complaints and escalated the allegations. Titled “Appeal for Redress over Irregularities in SCIPC ONSA Project Implementation,” the letter recalled that the revival of FOSSRA was proposed after Ribadu requested ideas from the NGO and the consultant for strengthening the government’s crisis communication efforts.
According to the petitioner, the NSA approved the proposal, designated the NGO as the secretariat of the revived forum with the consultant’s support, and subsequently approved their proposed activities. After the initiative evolved into SCIPC, the government released initial funding directly to the NGO.
The petitioner alleged, however, that Mijinyawa handled subsequent disbursements in an “irregular and suspicious manner” and deliberately excluded the NGO and its consultant from subsequent activities, despite their undertaking months of work without remuneration.
The correspondence went further, claiming the petitioners had uncovered what they described as “credible evidence of corrupt practices involving funds allocated for the assignment.”
The January 2026 correspondence also indicated that the complaints had progressed beyond written petitions. It stated that the NGO leadership was invited to ONSA and submitted a formal statement concerning the alleged irregularities. The consultant similarly reported to the office and provided a statement on the matter.
The petitioners expressed concern that after submitting their statements, they were neither invited for further engagement on the project nor paid for approved work they claimed to have executed. They also said the dispute created reputational challenges with their external stakeholders involved in the initiative.
According to the correspondence, records of executed assignments, communications and statements relating to the matter had already been submitted to an investigative team within ONSA.
Taken together, the two documents show that concerns over the communication project were formally raised in December 2024 and escalated directly to the NSA in January 2026.
Meanwhile, sources familiar with developments told PRNigeria that Mijinyawa, a legal practitioner, has since been redeployed to the legal department, while another officer was formally appointed to lead strategic communication.
However, despite the redeployment, sources alleged that Mijinyawa continues to wield considerable influence over functions associated with the Office of the Special Adviser on Communication. According to them, he still “calls the shots” as though he remains in charge of the strategic communication unit. They cited a recent meeting of spokespersons from military and security agencies, which Mijinyawa convened while the newly designated officer—described as both a media professional and a strategic communication scholar—was sidelined.
PRNigeria contacted Mijinyawa and forwarded questions seeking his response to allegations about the management of crisis communication funds, the exclusion of the original project partners, changes to the funding arrangement, any investigation into the complaints, and his current responsibilities at ONSA.
Mijinyawa acknowledged the request and asked for time to respond. However, as of the time of publication, he had not provided his responses or clarification on the allegations.
By PRNigeria
