Mohammed Badaru, Nigeria’s Defence Minister, has handed Nigerians yet another moment of disbelief with his recent statement on bandits and terrorists hiding deep in forests. According to him, bombs simply cannot reach these insurgents, leaving many scratching their heads at how such a logic-defying statement came out of the office meant to protect the nation.
A Statement That Defies Reason
In an interview with BBC Hausa Service, Badaru painted a picture of terrorists tucked away in dense forests, out of the reach of military bombs. His words, “some of these areas are places where direct strikes could endanger civilians, or forests where our bombs cannot penetrate,e” have sparked outrage, mockery, and widespread ridicule across Nigeria.
Many Nigerians took to social media to question the competency of the country’s defence leadership. How can a nation that claims a strong military admit publicly that its bombs are essentially useless in certain forests? Is this an explanation or an embarrassment?
The Science of Bombs
Let’s get real for a moment. Bombs are designed to explode, to send shockwaves, and to penetrate earth, concrete, or dense vegetation depending on type. Modern military ordinance, from air-dropped bombs to precision-guided munitions, can reach hardened bunkers, caves, and even deep forest hideouts. To say that “bombs can’t penetrate forests” is almost comical; it’s not the forest that stops the bomb, it’s the military strategy or the poor execution.
A basic airstrike can pulverize trees, scatter insurgents, and leave no hiding place intact. Even the thickest canopy is no shield for modern explosives. Badaru’s statement makes it sound as if the Nigerian military is powerless, and Nigerians are left wondering: are we dealing with terrorists or cartoon villains hiding in magic forests?
The Consequences of Such Words
When the Defence Minister admits that bombs can’t reach terrorists, the public loses faith. Parents of abducted schoolchildren, citizens fearing raids in their communities, and even ordinary Nigerians watching the news feel the sting of helplessness. Words like these can embolden criminals and erode the credibility of the nation’s security apparatus.
Badaru’s attempt to frame attacks as “guerrilla warfare” tactics, with periods of calm followed by sudden strikes, would be more credible if accompanied by concrete solutions. Instead, the statement comes off as an excuse, a justification for repeated failures in tackling insecurity.
Mockery and Social Media Backlash
Nigerians have not held back. Memes, satirical tweets, and harsh commentary quickly spread online, mocking the idea that a forest can deflect bombs. One social media user quipped, “So our bombs have feelings now? They refuse to go into the forest?” Another wrote, “Maybe the bombs need a compass and hiking boots.” The collective laughter and anger show how badly the statement damaged public trust.
The Bigger Picture
The issue is not just about a single remark, it reflects the deeper struggles of Nigeria’s fight against terrorism and banditry. The nation faces real challenges, from Boko Haram to Fulani terrorist groups, and the recent wave of school abductions is proof that more must be done. Citizens expect leadership that delivers solutions, not statements that invite ridicule.
Badaru’s comment inadvertently highlights the need for better strategy, improved intelligence, and perhaps, more modern military equipment. Saying bombs can’t reach a forest is not just inaccurate, it’s insulting to the very professionals tasked with protecting Nigeria.
Conclusion
Mohammed Badaru has turned a serious security issue into a source of national mockery. The idea that bombs cannot penetrate a forest is laughable and embarrassing, and Nigerians are making sure he knows it. As insecurity continues to threaten lives across the country, citizens expect accountability, not excuses or poorly thought-out explanations.
If the Defence Ministry cannot address terrorists hiding in forests, then what hope is there for ordinary Nigerians? Bombs may be powerful, but credibility, strategy, and leadership are even more critical, and on this score, Badaru’s words have only exposed a glaring weakness.
