Prince Harry embarked on a courageous solo journey to a military hospital in Kaduna, a region marked as a no-go zone by the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office.
Covering a distance of approximately 120 miles northwest of Abuja, Harry's decision to venture into this area showcased his commitment to supporting injured servicemen and women. Despite initial concerns about security both in the UK and abroad, he expressed regret for leaving Meghan behind in the capital of the West African country.
Upon arrival, amidst a warm welcome by dancers on a vibrant red carpet, Harry addressed the audience, acknowledging his absence with remorse: "I'm sorry that I didn't bring my wife." The focal point of Harry's visit to Kaduna was the brave men and women of the Nigerian forces who had been wounded, injured, or fallen sick while serving their country. During his visit, Harry encountered around six wards, where rows of young men were in various stages of recovery from injuries sustained in conflicts.
Many had been victims of shootings, ambushes by Boko Haram insurgents, or had suffered limb loss due to explosive devices. Harry personally interacted with approximately 50 former service personnel, offering words of encouragement and support: "You're going to get better, get back on your feet." He even shared a light-hearted moment with a man, suggesting a name for his prosthetic leg.
However, doubts arose regarding the authenticity of photos taken during Harry's visit to the military hospital. Observers noted the absence of typical hospital equipment such as bandages, medical apparatus, and blood pressure monitors, leading to speculation that the scenes may have been staged for publicity purposes. Despite assurances that the individuals photographed were genuine patients, some critics accused the visit of being orchestrated for the lenses of Netflix cameras, questioning the legitimacy of the setting and patients' conditions.
While the Sussexes' royal tour drew significant attention, not all reactions were positive. Some questioned Harry's decision to visit high-risk areas, particularly considering his past concerns about security, both for himself and his family. Former Royal Protection Officer Ken WF, who had accompanied Princess Diana to Nigeria in the 1990s, highlighted the apparent contradiction in Harry's actions. He questioned the necessity of Harry's visit to a potentially dangerous country, especially if he prioritizes the safety of his family. The absence of substantial security measures during his stay in London further fueled skepticism about the consistency of Harry's security concerns.
During their 72-hour visit to Nigeria, Harry and Meghan arranged their security, covering expenses themselves. Additionally, they received extra protection from the West African country, including a convoy of 10 army vehicles, two ambulances, and three Toyota pickups equipped with mounted machine guns. This heightened security contrasted sharply with Harry's previous insistence on private travel for safety reasons, raising eyebrows about the sudden shift in perceived threats and safety protocols.
The juxtaposition of Harry's willingness to visit potentially dangerous locations with his concerns about security in London prompted criticism and skepticism. Some viewed his actions as disregarding the safety of the nation that granted him his princely status. The contradictions in his security preferences, from opting for commercial flights to arranging extensive security measures in Nigeria, highlighted inconsistencies in his perceived safety concerns.
