Olu Allen
There is something deeply unsettling about the deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps (NSCDC), in Niger State.
Not simply because 37 people are dead.
Not simply because some of the detainees were reportedly teenagers.
But because they died after the state had taken custody of them.
The suspects were arrested during NSCDC enforcement operations around M.I. Wushishi and Lukoto in Niger State on September 15 and 16. By September 17, 37 of those detained had died in custody.
The circumstances surrounding their deaths are still being investigated. That distinction is important. Nigeria must resist the temptation to reach a conclusion before the evidence is established.
But there is already a question that cannot be avoided:
How did 37 people who entered government custody alive end up dead inside a government detention facility?
That question demands more than official statements. It demands evidence.
What we know — and what we do not
The Niger State government has said that about 67 artisanal and suspected illegal miners were arrested and detained during the operation.
Governor Mohammed Umaru Bago subsequently said the detainees were held in three cells, with the 37 deaths occurring among those in the cell where male detainees were kept.
The NSCDC initially attributed the deaths to a suspected disease outbreak. Its subsequent position was more cautious: the actual cause had not been established and medical and laboratory examinations were required.
That clarification matters.
So do the accounts emerging from survivors.
One survivor, Dauda Shehu, described severe overcrowding and difficulty breathing. Another survivor alleged that a substance resembling perfume was sprayed into the cell shortly before detainees began collapsing.
TheCable reported that the survivor said the substance caused a burning sensation in the throat and eyes.
These are serious allegations.
But they remain allegations.
They must be investigated, tested against forensic evidence and either established or disproved. They should neither be casually accepted as fact nor dismissed simply because they are disturbing.
Governor Bago has also said authorities were examining possible suffocation from overcrowding and possible exposure to hazardous substances connected to mining activities.
He stressed that the actual cause had not yet been established.
This is precisely why the forensic investigation matters.
Nigeria needs the truth, not a convenient theory.
Custody changes the state’s responsibility
There is a larger principle here that goes beyond illegal mining.
The government has a legitimate responsibility to enforce the law.
Illegal mining is a serious problem. It can expose workers and communities to dangerous conditions and can create wider environmental and security consequences.
But enforcement has limits.
Once the state arrests a person and places that person in custody, the state assumes responsibility for that person’s safety.
A suspect may be accused.
A suspect may be investigated.
A suspect may eventually be prosecuted.
If convicted, a suspect may be punished according to law.
But detention itself is not a sentence of death.
And an allegation of illegal mining is not a conviction.
This principle should not depend on whether the detainee is wealthy or poor, influential or unknown, educated or illiterate.
It is precisely when people lose the power to protect themselves that institutions exercising state power must be most accountable.
That is what makes deaths in custody different from deaths at an illegal mining site.
At a mining site, the government may be investigating whether it failed to prevent a dangerous activity.
Inside a government cell, the government is directly responsible for the conditions under which people are being held.
That distinction cannot be brushed aside.
The government has begun to respond
The federal government has ordered an investigation into the deaths.
President Bola Ahmed Tinubu said no Nigerian should lose his or her life in government custody through negligence, abuse, inhumane treatment or dereliction of duty, while directing a full and transparent investigation and accountability for officials found culpable.
The Niger State NSCDC commandant, Suberu Siyaka Aniviye, and members of his team have been suspended to allow investigations to proceed.
The state government has also constituted a committee of inquiry, while forensic and medical examinations have been initiated.
The police have separately commenced investigations into the deaths.
These are necessary steps.
But they are only the beginning.
A suspension is not accountability.
An investigation is not a verdict.
And a government statement, however reassuring, is not a substitute for evidence.
The investigation must answer difficult questions
The most important thing now is to protect the integrity of the investigation.
The detention records should be preserved.
The identities and ages of those detained should be established.
The precise number of people held in each cell should be documented.
Investigators should establish the physical condition of the facility, including ventilation, sanitation and capacity.
They should determine what medical attention was available and when it was sought.
They should establish the sequence of events from the moment the detainees arrived until the deaths were discovered.
They should examine the survivors’ accounts, including the allegation that a substance was sprayed inside the cell.
And most importantly, the forensic evidence should be allowed to answer the question that speculation cannot:
What caused the deaths?
The credibility of the investigation will matter almost as much as its conclusion.
If the agencies being investigated are also seen as controlling too much of the investigation, public confidence may suffer.
An investigation must therefore be sufficiently independent, transparent and professionally conducted to withstand scrutiny from the victims’ families, civil society and the wider public.
If negligence, abuse, unlawful conduct or any other criminal wrongdoing is established, those responsible should face due process.
Not scapegoating.
Not mob justice.
Not political theatre.
Due process.
But illegal mining remains part of the story
There is also a danger of allowing outrage over the deaths to obscure the other problem.
Illegal mining remains a serious challenge.
But arrests alone cannot solve it.
Why are young Nigerians entering dangerous mining operations?
Why does the economic incentive remain powerful enough to draw people into hazardous sites?
What role do poverty, unemployment, child labour, weak regulation and the demand for minerals play?
What happens to the people whose livelihoods depend on these activities after enforcement operations shut them down?
A government can arrest miners every week and still find the same communities returning to mining sites if the economic conditions that sustain the activity remain unchanged.
Law enforcement can disrupt an operation.
It cannot, by itself, eliminate the conditions that created the operation.
That is why the response to illegal mining must combine enforcement with regulation, community engagement, safer mining practices and economic alternatives.
But none of that diminishes the immediate question of what happened in that detention facility.
The test of a state is how it treats the powerless
Thirty-seven people are dead.
They may have been suspected of breaking the law. Some may indeed have been involved in illegal mining. That is a matter for evidence and due process.
But whatever the allegations against them, once they were detained, their lives were in the hands of the state.
That is the uncomfortable principle at the centre of this tragedy.
When government takes away a person’s freedom, it assumes a corresponding duty to protect that person’s life.
Nigeria therefore needs answers.
Who was arrested?
Who authorised the detention?
How many people were held in each cell?
What were the conditions inside the facility?
Were there complaints about overcrowding or difficulty breathing?
What medical intervention was provided?
What happened in the hours before the deaths?
Was any substance introduced into the cell?
What does the forensic evidence show?
And if negligence or wrongdoing is established, who will be held accountable?
These questions should not belong to one political party, one government or one section of the country.
They belong to the Nigerian public.
Because the issue is bigger than 37 suspected illegal miners.
It is about what happens when an ordinary citizen passes from the protection of the law into the custody of the state.
A government that asks citizens to obey the law must also demonstrate that it will obey the law in its treatment of those accused of breaking it.
Justice is not tested only by how we treat people we admire.
It is tested by how we treat people who have little power to defend themselves.
Allen writes on public affairs, governance and society.
