The first claim is that the Liberian government, through its embassy in Abuja, filed a formal diplomatic complaint on June 8 against the Nigerian cleric, who had prophesied hardship and crisis in Liberia and promoted a coup narrative against President Joseph Boakai.
The complaint was triggered by a June 5 church service at Ayodele's ministry in Nigeria, during which he directed what critics described as curses at the country. In a 46-second video, the pastor is heard saying: “Liberia, your president is confused, so the economy of the country is confused. Everything about the country is confused. So, confusion from now till 2029 in Liberia: you are going to face hardship. Liberia is going to be hot next year. If they don’t even plan against you. Sincerely, it will be very tough. Hardship is awaiting Liberia; the government is not ready to change, and it is going to cause a crisis. The man is tired. Why can’t he resign?” Letter from Liberia to Nigeria
Another claim on June 9, 2026 was a communication that began circulating online, purporting to be an official response from Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The document was published by several Liberian media outlets and social media users, including Spoon TV Online—which later issued a correction retracting its initial post—as well as Lib daily monitor news, insight Liberia, and others. Purported commuication from Nigeria to Liberia
Several outlets later removed their posts without issuing corrections or apologies. The letter emerged a day after the Liberian Embassy in Abuja formally lodged its diplomatic complaint on June 8, 2026, over Ayodele’s remarks about President Boakai.
The document purports to be a formal response from Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, to Liberia’s Foreign Minister, Sara Beysolow Nyanti, concerning the remarks made by Primate Elijah Babatunde Ayodele about President Joseph Nyuma Boakai.
It alleges that Nigeria acknowledged Liberia’s complaint but maintained that Ayodele’s statements were made in a “private capacity” and did not represent the Nigerian government.
The letter also invokes Nigeria’s commitment to freedom of expression and expresses “surprise” that a private citizen’s remarks became the subject of diplomatic correspondence.
Verification: We reviewed the two communications and established that it is correct that Liberia wrote the Nigerian Ambassador to complain against Ayodele.
In its communication, Liberia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Ayodele’s “prophecy" risked inflaming public opinion, damaging Liberia-Nigeria relations, and undermining peace, stability, and democratic governance in Africa’s oldest Republic.
The embassy also cited Ayodele’s history of involvement in Liberia’s political affairs and called on Nigerian authorities to review the matter and take appropriate action.
We contacted the Press bureau at the Liberian Embassy, Jerry Nyepan, who confirmed that the communication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is authentic.
We also established that the statement was published in FrontPage Africa, June 9, Tuesday's edition.
In the purported communications from Nigeria showed a lot of typographical errors, and beyond the typographical errors inconsistent with standard diplomatic correspondence, a search of Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website yields no publication or confirmation of the letter. The Stage Media also notes that official diplomatic notes are rarely, if ever, made public.
Saywhar Gbaa, Assistant Minister of Public Affairs at The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Liberia, was contacted since several outlets, blogs, and social media accounts shared the viral communication, but she said the claim is fake.
Conclusion: It is correct that Liberia complained against Pastor Ayodele to the Nigerian Ambassador, but the letter claiming to be Nigeria’s official response to Liberia’s diplomatic complaint over Primate Ayodele’s remarks is misleading.
It does not appear on Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs website, contains multiple typographical errors, and its origin remains unknown. Several outlets that published it have since retracted their posts. Therefore, the claim is partly true.
