The fallout from the deadly airstrike near the Borno–Yobe border is no longer just about what happened on the ground—it is now a battle over who counts as a civilian. A statement from President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s aide has sharpened that debate, raising urgent questions about military rules of engagement in Nigeria’s war zones.

On April 11, 2026, the Nigerian Air Force, operating under Operation HADIN KAI, carried out an airstrike around Jilli village near the Borno–Yobe border. Military authorities said the target was a logistics hub linked to the Islamic State West Africa Province, citing intelligence that showed movements of motorcycles and armed convoys.

However, local authorities and emergency officials reported that civilians—many believed to be traders—were caught in the strike. Early casualty estimates ranged from over 40 deaths to significantly higher figures, though none have been independently verified.

As outrage grew, presidential aide Dada Olusegun entered the conversation on X (formerly Twitter), responding to claims that the site was a civilian market. His position was blunt: individuals “doing business with terrorists” should not be considered civilians but legitimate military targets.

Olusegun’s statement introduces a controversial but consequential doctrine: that economic interaction with insurgents may erase civilian protection. In regions like northeastern Nigeria, where communities often operate under coercion or survival-driven trade, that line is far from clear.

However, a closer look shows the risks of such a position. Markets in conflict zones have historically served dual roles—centres of civilian livelihood and, at times, infiltration points for armed groups. Declaring all participants as potential targets risks broadening the scope of military engagement in ways that could increase civilian casualties.

Beyond the official statement, the economic reality complicates the narrative further. In areas affected by insurgency, local traders often have limited choice but to engage in informal or coerced exchanges. Labeling such interactions as collaboration could effectively criminalize survival.

What makes this more complex is Nigeria’s history of similar incidents. Previous airstrikes targeting insurgents have, on multiple occasions, resulted in civilian deaths, later acknowledged as mistakes. Each incident has intensified scrutiny over intelligence accuracy and targeting protocols.

That framing leaves out a crucial dimension: accountability. While the military insists the strike followed “rigorous procedures,” the acknowledgment by emergency agencies that civilians were affected suggests a gap between intelligence assessments and ground realities.

Nigeria’s counterinsurgency war against groups like ISWAP has lasted over a decade, with the North-East remaining the epicentre. According to security analysts, insurgents increasingly rely on informal supply chains embedded within civilian environments, making clean separation difficult.

Past incidents—including accidental bombings of civilian gatherings—have led to calls for improved surveillance and stricter engagement rules. Despite these calls, patterns suggest recurring challenges in distinguishing between hostile targets and civilian presence.

The Jilli strike fits into this broader trend, where intelligence-led operations intersect with densely populated or economically active areas, raising the probability of collateral damage.