Social media influencer and activist Mark Chidiebere Justice, widely known as Justice Crack, has pushed back against claims by the Minister of Defence, Christopher Musa, that he manipulated a viral video on the welfare of Nigerian soldiers by instructing troops to remove meat from their meals.
The activist said the allegation was unfounded and challenged the minister to provide evidence to support the claim.
The controversy arose after Musa, speaking during an interview on News Central Television, dismissed reports of poor feeding within the military and alleged that the viral video was deliberately staged to create a misleading impression.
According to the minister, the meals served to soldiers contained adequate food items, including meat, but these were allegedly removed before the footage was recorded.
“The soldiers’ food was okay. There was meat, there was all these things. He told them to put all these things out and make it look as if those things were not there,” Musa said.
Responding in a statement on Thursday, Justice Crack described the minister’s comments as false and misleading, insisting that he had neither the authority nor the opportunity to direct serving military personnel.
“The Minister of Defence, General Christopher Gwabin Musa (Rtd), lied during an interview on News Central that I, JusticeCrack, instructed military officers to remove meat and other items from their meals to make the food appear inadequate,” he stated.
“I never told any military officer to remove meat or anything else from their food. What authority do I have to give such an instruction? I am not a General, a Commander, or a Colonel. I have no military background whatsoever.”
He argued that it was illogical to suggest that a civilian without any official role in the armed forces could issue instructions to serving soldiers.
Justice Crack further disclosed that his involvement in the matter stemmed from complaints he allegedly received from military personnel concerned about their welfare and living conditions.
According to him, the video was intended to draw attention to those concerns and encourage improvements within the system.
“It is also important for the public to know that I never reached out to military officers. Rather, some of them reached out to me to express concerns about their welfare,” he said.
“In good faith, I made a video to raise awareness so that the military authorities could pay attention to the welfare of the officers and men serving our country. My intention was simply to advocate for better working conditions, improved welfare and better living conditions for the brave men and women who defend Nigeria.”
The activist expressed disappointment over the minister’s remarks, saying they could tarnish his image and misrepresent his motives before the public.
“It is deeply painful and, in my view, defamatory to hear the Honourable Minister of Defence make such a statement about me on national television without presenting any evidence,” he said.
“Such a statement has the potential to damage my reputation and misrepresent my intentions before the Nigerian public.”
He maintained that his advocacy has consistently centred on transparency, accountability and the welfare of security personnel.
“My advocacy has always been about accountability, better welfare for our security personnel and good governance. I never instructed any military officer to remove meat or any other item from their food,” he added.
The dispute is linked to a viral video that sparked public debate over the feeding and welfare conditions of soldiers in the Nigerian Army.
In May, Justice Crack was arraigned before a court and subsequently remanded in custody over allegations connected to the publication of the video.
Among the charges filed against him was an allegation that he knowingly disseminated false information through his social media platform, @JusticeCrack, regarding the feeding arrangements of military personnel.
Prosecutors alleged that the publication was intended to cause public disaffection and hatred, an offence punishable under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended.
The case continues to attract public attention, with supporters of the activist describing him as a whistleblower seeking improved welfare for soldiers, while authorities insist that false information about national security institutions must be addressed through legal channels.
Leave a Reply