The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Nigerian Red Cross Society (NRCS) have jointly dismissed claims circulating on social media alleging that the Red Cross is providing support to armed groups in northern Nigeria.
In a statement released on Tuesday, both organisations described the allegations as “false” and warned that such misinformation could undermine their humanitarian mission and deny vulnerable populations access to critical aid.
|
|
“The allegations are diametrically opposed to the Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement,” the statement read, stressing that the claims constitute misleading information capable of jeopardising life-saving operations.
The organisations reiterated that their primary mission is to assist the most vulnerable people affected by crises, including armed conflict, while maintaining strict adherence to neutrality, independence, transparency, and impartiality.
|
|
|
|---|
They also clarified that while the International Committee of the Red Cross engages in humanitarian dialogue with all parties in conflict zones, where it can, to ensure access to affected populations, it does not provide any financial, logistical, or other forms of support to such groups.
The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Nigerian Red Cross Society urged the public to rely on credible and official sources of information and to avoid sharing unverified content online.
They further advised media practitioners and the public to direct enquiries to their official communication channels to ensure accurate reporting.
Background
The denial comes amid misinformation circulating on social media in Nigeria’s conflict-ridden regions, particularly in the North-east, where insurgency has killed thousands and displaced many.
In an interview with a content creator, Lucky Udu, a man simply identified as Sa’adu made a claim that Red Cross workers came to Sambisa forest to “give us clothes and food.”
Mr Sa’adu, who said he was a teacher from a village in Adamawa State, explained that he was kidnapped by Boko Haram and spent three months and some days in captivity.
Albab Abdullahi, a Facebook user who described himself as a former soldier, security consultant and geopolitical analyst, amplified this claim, saying that the Red Cross is “not saving lives” but extending the insurgency.
The post has since gone viral across social media platforms in a context already marked by deep mistrust, limited access to verified information, and ongoing violence linked to the unending insurgency.
This is not the first time humanitarian organisations have faced such accusations in the region. Last year, President Bola Tinubu shut down the International Non-Governmental Organisation Safety Organisation (INSO), ordering it to vacate the country over alleged links to the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), an organisation which was accused by a US lawmaker of funding Boko Haram.
READ ALSO: 33 million Nigerians risk severe hunger in 2026 – Red Cross
Also in 2023, the Zamfara State government accused nongovernmental organisations of fueling insecurity and ordered them to leave the state.
Although those claims were widely debated and not conclusively proven, they contributed to suspicion around humanitarian work in the North-east.
Humanitarian organisations working in conflict zones frequently face such accusations due to the nature of their operations. The ICRC, for instance, has a policy of engaging all parties to a conflict strictly for humanitarian access, ensuring aid reaches civilians trapped in hard-to-reach or insurgent-controlled areas. However, this neutral engagement is often misinterpreted as collaboration or support.
Nigeria’s North-east has, for over a decade, been the epicentre of a humanitarian crisis driven by insurgency, displacement, and food insecurity. Aid agencies, including the Red Cross, play a critical role in delivering food, medical care, and protection services to affected populations. Yet, the operating environment remains highly sensitive, with both state and non-state actors scrutinising humanitarian access.
