For years, Primate Elijah Ayodele has argued that Nigeria’s approach to national security should go beyond conventional intelligence gathering.
The leader of INRI Evangelical Spiritual Church has previously called for the establishment of a platform or department of “Spiritual Intelligence” that could provide security agencies with prophetic warnings about possible threats.
That argument has resurfaced, with supporters pointing to several of Ayodele’s past predictions as evidence that spiritual warnings deserve greater attention.
But the claim raises a bigger question.
Can spiritual intelligence genuinely complement conventional security intelligence, or are supporters connecting predictions to events only after those events occur?
That is where the real debate begins.
What Does Ayodele Mean By Spiritual Intelligence?
According to commentary supporting Ayodele’s position, spiritual intelligence would involve credible religious figures providing information about potential threats before they occur.
The argument is straightforward.
If a prophet claims to foresee a kidnapping, political crisis, attack or threat against a government, security agencies could theoretically examine the warning and determine whether it contains actionable information.
Ayodele has argued that such warnings could help security agencies move from reacting to threats towards preventing them.
It is an unconventional proposition in a country where intelligence gathering traditionally depends on surveillance, informants, investigations, technology and analysis.
And that is precisely why it attracts attention.
The Prophecy That Keeps Coming Back
One of the examples frequently cited by Ayodele’s supporters concerns an alleged plot against President Bola Tinubu.
Published accounts supporting the prophet’s position say Ayodele warned about an attempt to remove Tinubu from office through unconstitutional means before reports of an alleged coup plot emerged.
The argument is that the warning came before the alleged event and therefore demonstrates the potential value of spiritual intelligence.
However, there is an important distinction.
A prediction being made before an event does not automatically establish that it caused the event to be prevented, or that it was more accurate than intelligence available to security agencies.
Those are separate claims.
Where The Debate Gets Complicated
This is where the argument for spiritual intelligence becomes difficult to measure.
Security intelligence can be tested against evidence.
An intelligence report may contain intercepted communications, surveillance findings, witness information, financial records or other verifiable material.
Prophetic warnings operate differently.
They are based on spiritual claims that believers may accept as divine revelation, while sceptics may regard them as predictions whose meaning becomes clearer only after an event occurs.
That difference makes direct comparisons difficult.
It also explains why the debate around Ayodele is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.
Should Security Agencies Ignore Prophetic Warnings?
Perhaps the more practical question is whether security agencies should completely dismiss such warnings.
A warning from a religious figure does not have to replace conventional intelligence.
At most, it could become another lead that investigators examine.
If a prophecy contains specific information about a location, timeframe, target or method, security agencies could independently verify the information before taking action.
That would preserve the principle of evidence-based security while leaving room for unconventional sources of information.
The problem would arise if an unverified prophecy were treated as established intelligence without corroboration.
National security decisions involve lives, resources and potentially serious consequences.
That requires evidence.
The Tinubu Connection Adds Another Layer
Ayodele has also made several public predictions concerning President Tinubu’s administration.
These have included warnings about political opposition, security threats and developments involving the United States.
Some reports supporting the prophet’s position have cited his earlier comments about possible challenges involving Washington and the Nigerian presidency.
Supporters argue that subsequent developments have strengthened his record.
Critics, however, would naturally ask a different question:
How many predictions were made that did not materialise?
That question matters whenever the accuracy of a prediction is being assessed.
A fair assessment should examine both successful and unsuccessful predictions rather than highlighting only the ones that appear to have come true.
Spiritual Intelligence Versus Security Intelligence
The phrase “spiritual intelligence” has become powerful because it challenges the traditional understanding of intelligence gathering.
But perhaps the two concepts do not necessarily have to compete.
A security agency can investigate a credible warning without endorsing its spiritual source.
Likewise, a religious leader can provide a warning without claiming that security professionals should abandon their methods.
The most defensible position may therefore be integration rather than substitution.
Spiritual warnings could be treated as leads.
Conventional intelligence could then determine whether those leads contain evidence of an actual threat.
The Bigger Question Nigeria Should Be Asking
Nigeria has experienced kidnappings, terrorism, communal violence, political instability and other security challenges.
The country therefore needs every legitimate source of useful information.
But usefulness must ultimately be measurable.
If spiritual intelligence is going to become part of a national security conversation, the next step should not simply be accepting or rejecting prophecy.
It should be developing a transparent method for evaluating warnings.
Which predictions were specific?
Which were made before the events?
Which contained information that could not reasonably have been obtained from public knowledge?
How many were accurate?
How many were wrong?
And, most importantly, did any security agency act on them and prevent a threat?
Those questions would move the discussion from faith versus scepticism to evidence.
The Prophecy Debate Is Not Going Away
Primate Ayodele’s argument has certainly created a conversation about the limits of conventional intelligence.
His supporters see his warnings as evidence that Nigeria may be overlooking a potentially useful source of information.
Sceptics will demand stronger evidence before accepting that spiritual intelligence can outperform professional security intelligence.
Both sides ultimately face the same challenge: prove the claim.
If spiritual intelligence can consistently provide specific, timely and verifiable warnings that help prevent attacks, then security agencies may have a reason to examine it more seriously.
Until then, the claim that spiritual intelligence “supersedes” security reports remains an argument — not an established fact.
And perhaps that is the real story behind Primate Ayodele’s latest debate.
