A striking testimony from Nigerian police inspector Habibou Oumarou Mamane aired on national television on October 23, 2026, has reignited speculation about the whereabouts of Colonel Pascal Tigri, the alleged mastermind behind Benin’s failed coup attempt on December 7, 2025. In a televised statement, the inspector claimed he was approached to locate the fugitive officer in Niger, citing financial transactions, intermediaries, and alleged covert efforts to track Tigri’s possible hideout.

Detailed claims, but unverified assertions

Inspector Habibou Oumarou Mamane told a national audience he was recruited on February 27, 2026, to assist in locating Pascal Tigri. He described receiving instructions through intermediaries, including individuals claiming connections to Beninese authorities. He alleged a cash payment of two million CFA francs was handed to him on March 9, 2026, in Niamey’s main market, with promises of an additional five million for success. He named several contacts—including Moumouni, Zakou, a man called “David,” and a Beninese police officer referred to as Ilou—and mentioned meetings near the border town of Malanville, where further promises were reportedly made, including diplomatic passports and political appointments.

While the story is rich in detail, the claims have not been independently verified. Questions remain unanswered: Who are the named individuals really? Did official Beninese authorities order such a search? And where is the documentary or financial proof supporting these financial transfers? Without corroboration, the narrative remains unverified hearsay.

Searching for a fugitive is not the same as orchestrating an exfiltration

One particularly loaded word in the testimony is “exfiltration.” The inspector used it to describe a covert extraction—a process implying clandestine movement of a suspect out of a country. Yet asserting that a fugitive is being sought is not the same as confirming a government-ordered escape plan. The distinction is crucial.

Searching for a criminal suspect on foreign soil is a legitimate security concern for any state. Locating, monitoring, and pursuing a wanted individual through judicial or police channels falls within the bounds of sovereign authority. However, without clear evidence of an official operation—such as documented orders, verified payments, or authenticated communications—claims of an orchestrated exfiltration remain speculative.

Why was this information aired on public television?

The decision to broadcast such sensitive allegations on a state-run channel raises serious questions. Public airing can serve transparency, but it can also fuel speculation, especially in a climate of strained relations. When serious accusations are made without supporting evidence, they risk becoming tools of speculation rather than instruments of justice.

If the claims are true, formal legal and diplomatic channels—such as mutual legal assistance or extradition requests—would provide the necessary framework to address them. If they are unfounded, the public disclosure could instead deepen mistrust or create diplomatic friction. Without verifiable proof, the televised testimony remains a dramatic narrative rather than a proven fact.

Regional cooperation tested by unproven allegations

This case is no longer just about finding a missing officer. It tests the ability of two neighboring nations to distinguish between credible leads and sensational claims. Pascal Tigri’s alleged presence in Niger, if true, would make cooperation essential—but cooperation must be based on facts, not television performances.

The identities involved, the financial transactions, and the alleged instructions demand independent verification. Until then, the narrative—despite its dramatic presentation—remains unproven. Whether this is a genuine security concern or a politically charged revelation will only be clear once credible evidence surfaces. For now, the ball is in the court of law, not the court of public opinion.

By Maimouna Kaboré — Journalist