I have spent some time looking into the allegations against Senator Shehu Buba, including listening to the senator himself. My conclusion is not that he should be shielded from investigation. It is that the public conversation has moved considerably faster than the evidence.
The Hassan issue is probably the most important place to begin.
Senator Buba does not deny knowing Hassan. His explanation is that Hassan came to him as an orphan in need of educational assistance and that he helped him with his schooling. Hassan now gives a very different account of their relationship and has made serious allegations about people allegedly connected to the senator and to Dogo Gide’s network. Those claims deserve examination precisely because they are serious.
But there is another part of this story that deserves to be put on the table.
According to Senator Buba, Hassan was not simply a recent whistleblower who appeared with allegations against him. Buba says he had previously petitioned the police over what he regarded as a coordinated campaign against him, and that four suspects were arrested, with court proceedings subsequently commencing. Reports identify Hassan alongside other individuals named in the senator’s 2025 petition. Buba further says Hassan, whom he describes as the principal suspect, subsequently fled to Niger Republic and continued making online broadcasts from there. Saturday PUNCH reported these claims but also noted that it was unable to independently confirm the police action.
That history does not, by itself, establish that Hassan’s present allegations are false. Nor does an arrest or prosecution establish that Senator Buba’s accusations against those individuals are true.
What it does establish is that the present controversy cannot honestly be presented as though Hassan’s allegations emerged in isolation, without a prior dispute or competing account of the relationship between the two men.
And that brings us back to the central evidentiary question.
The fact that Buba knew Hassan does not establish that Buba knew, sponsored or facilitated bandits. For that conclusion, there has to be an evidentiary bridge between the two propositions. At present, I have not seen that bridge established independently.
This becomes even more important because one of the materials used to create the latest impression of Buba hosting bandit kingpins has already been found to be misleading. PRNigeria’s investigation concluded that the viral video merged unrelated footage and that the men portrayed as bandits could not be established as such. The people in one of the clips were identified as businessmen who visited Buba after pilgrimage in 2023.
That does not settle every allegation against Senator Buba. It does, however, demonstrate why we should be extremely cautious about treating digital material as evidence merely because it is dramatic and widely circulated.
There is a broader issue here that concerns me more than Senator Buba himself.
We are gradually losing the distinction between association, allegation and proof.
A person may know someone who later turns out to be a criminal. A politician may receive visitors whose backgrounds he does not know. A photograph may establish that two people were in the same room, but it does not by itself establish what they discussed or what either person subsequently did.
The question therefore cannot simply be, “Does Senator Buba know Hassan?”
The real question is: what independently verifiable evidence shows that the relationship was connected to banditry?
If there is such evidence, it should be produced and investigated. If there are financial transactions, communications, witnesses or intelligence findings, they should be subjected to proper scrutiny.
I have also not forgotten my earlier call for the DSS to disclose the outcome of any investigation into these allegations. I stand by that position. A proper investigation serves both sides. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, the public deserves accountability. If there isn’t, an innocent person should not remain permanently condemned by an allegation that no competent authority has substantiated.
My concern, therefore, is not about protecting Senator Shehu Buba. It is about protecting the standard of evidence by which we judge public officials.
Banditry has already done enormous damage to Nigeria. We should not allow the fight against it to become so emotionally charged that accusation itself becomes proof.
I went looking beyond the headlines.
What I have found so far justifies investigation, but it does not justify conviction.
Solomon Dalung Esq.
Dear Readers, Good and credible news reportage is tedious task and requires huge finances.
We are soliciting your Noble support for as low as N1,000 your support would go a long way in assisting us to continue to guarantee our readers quality news.
Bank transfers can be made to:
Account Name: Harvest and Commercial
Bank: Sterling Bank
Account Number: 0078627735