Dennis Amachree, a retired assistant director of the Department of State Services (DSS), has stated that the appointment of Isa Pantami as Minister of Communications and Digital Economy under former President Muhammadu Buhari raised significant national security concerns and exposed systemic weaknesses in Nigeria’s vetting process.
Amachree made these revelations in his memoir, ‘DSS @40: My Journey Behind the Shield’, which chronicles his four decades in Nigeria’s intelligence service.
The retired DSS officer revisited the 2021 controversy sparked by the resurfacing of Pantami’s past sermons and public statements, in which he allegedly expressed sympathy for extremist groups such as al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Boko Haram.
Amachree questioned how someone entrusted with Nigeria’s telecommunications and digital infrastructure managed to clear security checks.
He explained that the DSS routinely conducts extensive background checks on nominees for sensitive public offices—examining their past affiliations, public speeches, academic records, political leanings, and online activities—before forwarding intelligence reports to the president and, where applicable, the National Assembly. However, he emphasized that the agency’s role is purely advisory.
Although Amachree acknowledged that he could not confirm the exact contents of Pantami’s security file, he noted it was unlikely that such public statements escaped the attention of intelligence officers.
“In Pantami’s case, it is my belief that the DSS report likely contained references to his earlier extremist sympathies,” Amachree wrote. “However, when political imperatives—such as federal character balancing, internal party dynamics, or strategic regional representation—enter the equation, security advice can be sidelined.”
Amachree also addressed Pantami’s confirmation by the Senate. He recalled statement by Ajibola Basiru, then-chairman of the Senate Committee on Media and Public Affairs, who claimed lawmakers received no adverse security reports prior to confirming the nomination.
Calling the situation a clear example of the “politicization of intelligence,” Amachree outlined two likely scenarios:
“Either the DSS report was sanitized before reaching the Senate, or it was submitted with adverse findings that were simply disregarded due to political considerations. Both scenarios reflect systemic weaknesses in Nigeria’s national security framework—either in the handling of intelligence or in how institutions treat security recommendations.”
Amachree warned that the episode severely undermined public confidence in the country’s counterterrorism strategy, noting the stark contradiction of spending billions to fight insurgents while defending an official with documented extremist rhetoric.
He concluded that the Pantami case should serve as a cautionary tale for future administrations, stressing the urgent need to insulate security assessments from political interference to rebuild institutional trust.
