The uproar caused by the death of 37 detained suspected illegal Miners in custody, is unlikely to die down soon. They were arrested on September 15 & 16, 2026, had not been charged, and were found dead in the early hours of September 17, 2026 while in the custody of Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC). Speculation as to what may have caused their death, is rife. Was it a suspected outbreak of disease, as the NSCDC has alluded to? Or was it intentional/foul play, a mistake or negligence? Was it as a result of overcrowding, poor ventilation and bad conditions? An Independent Investigation, is already underway. What duty does a Custodian owe a Detainee, and who answers when 37 such persons die in one night? Professor Uju Agomoh, Angela Nwandu-Uzoma Iwuchukwu and Okechukwu Nwanguma examine these questions, share their views on the vexed issue, and what must change to prevent a reoccurrence 

When 37 Lives Become a Question for the State: The Tragedy in NSCDC Custody

Prof Uju Agomoh

Thirty-seven people entered the custody of the Nigerian State alive. They did not leave it alive. That fact alone, should make every Nigerian pause. Many have written and spoken on this outrage, including the Nigerian Bar Association, several Civil Society organisations (CSOs), and Coalitions such as the CSO Forum on Detention and Corrections, which issued a statement signed by thirty-four (34) CSOs from across the country.

The deaths of 37 persons detained by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Minna, Niger State, following arrests during operations against suspected illegal mining, are not merely another tragic news story. They raise fundamental questions about the meaning of State custody, the limits of law-enforcement power, the dignity owed to persons deprived of their liberty and, ultimately, the value that Nigeria places on human life.

The victims were reportedly arrested on September 15 and 16, 2026, during NSCDC operations in the M.I. Wushishi and Lukoto areas of Niger State. 37 detainees were subsequently, found dead at an NSCDC Detention Facility on September 17. The NSCDC initially referred to a suspected disease outbreak, while subsequent accounts from survivors and others raised questions about overcrowding, ventilation and the possible spraying of an unidentified substance. The precise cause and mechanism of the deaths, remain subject to investigation. That distinction matters.

In a society governed by law, allegations must not be converted into conclusions merely because they are emotionally compelling. The Government has established an independent Investigative Committee, and its medical team has begun work to determine the cause, mechanism and manner of the deaths. The Committee has also said it will interview survivors and others with relevant information, and examine the circumstances surrounding the incident. The investigation must therefore, be allowed to establish the facts. But, allowing an investigation to run its course does not mean that society should remain silent. On the contrary, this is precisely the moment when public attention must remain focused.

Custody Creates Responsibility 

There is a profound legal and moral difference between a person dying in the ordinary course of life, and a person dying while completely under the control of the State. When the State arrests an individual, it takes away, at least temporarily, that person’s ability to determine where they sleep, what they eat, how they obtain medical attention and, in many circumstances, whom they can immediately contact for assistance. With that power comes responsibility.

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, protects the dignity of the human person and personal liberty. It recognises that deprivation of liberty must occur according to law, and provides important safeguards for persons who are arrested or detained. A detainee does not lose his humanity, because he is suspected of committing an offence. Nor does suspicion become conviction, merely because a person has been arrested. An allegation of illegal mining, does not extinguish the rights of the person arrested. Those rights remain until lawfully removed or restricted, in accordance with due process. Indeed, the very purpose of a justice system, is to ensure that the State does not punish people merely because it suspects them.

The Question is Bigger than the Cause of Death 

Much of the public discussion has understandably focused on one question: What killed the 37 detainees? Was it disease? Was it suffocation? Was overcrowding a contributing factor? Was there inadequate ventilation? Was a substance introduced into the cell? Was there a failure to provide timely medical assistance? Were there other contributing circumstances?

These are critical questions. But they are not the only questions. The investigation should also establish:

How many people were detained in the Facility?

What was the lawful capacity of the cell?

What were the conditions of detention?

Were detainees medically examined upon arrival?

Were there records of their names, ages, health conditions and time of admission?

Were family members notified of their detention?

Did detainees have access to Lawyers?

Were minors among those detained?

Who authorised the detention arrangements?

Who was responsible for monitoring the cell?

What happened when detainees began showing signs of distress?

Were requests for medical assistance made, and if so, how were they handled?

These questions are not attempts to prejudge the outcome of the investigation. They are the ordinary questions that arise, whenever people die in State custody.

The United Nations Committee Against Torture has specifically emphasised, in relation to Nigeria, that deaths in custody should be promptly, thoroughly and impartially investigated, including through independent forensic examination. It has also called for adequate healthcare for detainees, and independent medical examination. International standards therefore, reinforce what basic humanity already tells us: detention must never become a place where people disappear from public concern.

A Detainee Isn’t a Disposable Person

There is a dangerous mentality that sometimes develops around people in detention: that once someone is described as a criminal, an illegal miner, a suspect, a terrorist or any other undesirable category, whatever happens to that person becomes less important.

That mentality is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law. The justice system does not exist, to protect only the innocent. It exists to ensure that guilt is determined lawfully, and that even those suspected or convicted of offences, are treated according to established legal standards.

This is why the presumption of innocence matters.

This is why due process matters.

This is why access to Counsel matters.

This is why medical care in detention matters.

And, this is why independent oversight matters.

The tragedy in Niger State should therefore, not be reduced to the question of whether the deceased were involved in illegal mining. Even if every allegation against every detainee was ultimately established in court, it would not answer the separate question of whether they were treated lawfully and humanely while detained.

The State Must Investigate Itself – But,  Independently 

The Federal Government has taken several steps, following the deaths. The Niger State NSCDC Commandant and other officers connected with the incident were suspended, and the Minister of Interior promptly constituted a 10-member independent Investigative Committee. The Committee was directed to investigate the circumstances of the deaths, and recommend measures to prevent a recurrence. These are important and commendable steps. But, the process’s credibility will ultimately depend on what happens next.

The investigation should preserve and examine all relevant records, including arrest registers, detention registers, duty rosters, CCTV or other recordings (where available), medical records, communications, incident reports and statements from officers and detainees. Survivors should be interviewed, in conditions that protect them from intimidation or retaliation.

Families of the deceased should be treated as participants, with legitimate interests in knowing what happened to their loved ones.

The forensic process must be transparent, and professionally conducted. Where appropriate, families should have access to relevant medical and autopsy findings. The public does not need speculation. It needs evidence.

Accountability Mustn’t Stop at Suspension 

Suspension is an administrative measure; it is not accountability. If the investigation establishes criminal conduct, the law must take its course. If it establishes negligence or breaches of professional duty, appropriate disciplinary action should follow. If it reveals systemic failures rather than individual misconduct alone, the response must extend beyond punishing individuals. This distinction is crucial.

If overcrowding contributed to the deaths, detention capacity must be addressed.

If inadequate medical care contributed, authorities must strengthen medical screening and emergency response.

If poor ventilation contributed, authorities must review detention infrastructure.

If detainees were abused, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened.

If the problem involved inadequate supervision, command structures and custodial protocols must be examined.

 Nigeria Must Confront the Culture of Custodial Impunity

The deaths in Minna should also force a broader conversation, about detention in Nigeria.

For years, human-rights advocates have drawn attention to overcrowding, prolonged detention, inadequate healthcare, torture, poor sanitation and limited access to legal assistance, across places of detention. These problems cannot be solved, one incident at a time.

Nigeria needs a custodial system in which every person entering detention is accounted for, medically assessed, properly registered, informed of their rights, and monitored throughout their detention. This should be the case, in all Places of Deprivation of Liberty (PDLs) in Nigeria. All PDLs must be known and accessible to independent monitoring mechanisms, including via regular unannounced monitoring visits. Independent monitoring should not be treated, as an intrusion into the work of security agencies. It should be understood as an essential safeguard, for both detainees and responsible officers.

The Nelson Mandela Rules and related international standards recognise that, persons deprived of liberty retain their inherent dignity. International guidance also emphasises that custodial deaths should be reported promptly to an authority independent of the detention administration, and subjected to effective investigation.

Thirty-Seven Isn’t Just a Number

Perhaps, the greatest danger now is that the 37 deaths become another statistic. They must not.

Behind the number 37, are human beings. Whatever the allegations against them, each had a name and a family.

Some reports have raised concerns that children or very young persons, may have been among those detained. The investigation must properly verify those reports. If minors were indeed, detained, that would raise additional and extremely serious questions about the legality and appropriateness of their detention and treatment.

The families deserve answers; the surviving detainees deserve protection; the officers involved deserve a fair process; and the Nigerian public deserves the truth. These interests are not contradictory. Justice requires all of them.

From Outrage to Reform 

Public outrage is understandable. But, outrage alone will not prevent another tragedy. The real test will be, whether this incident produces lasting institutional reform.

Every law-enforcement and detention agency should have clear maximum occupancy limits for cells, mandatory medical screening on admission, emergency medical protocols, accurate custody registers, regular independent inspections, mechanisms for detainees to make confidential complaints, and clear procedures for notifying families, and immediately escalating cases when a detainee becomes seriously ill.

Supervisors – not merely junior officers – should also be clearly accountable, when custodial standards are violated.

Most importantly, Nigeria must build a culture in which the death of a person in custody automatically triggers serious, independent scrutiny. The 37 deaths in NSCDC custody therefore, present Nigeria with a choice – not a political choice, but, a choice about institutions and the rule of law. When people die under State control, the State must account not only for the immediate cause of death, but also for the conditions, decisions and failures that may have made those deaths possible.

We can allow the incident to become another disturbing headline, that gradually disappears from public memory. Or we can insist that the deaths lead to facts, accountability, institutional learning and reform. The investigation must determine exactly what happened in that cell. If wrongdoing occurred, those responsible must answer for it. If systemic failures contributed, those failures must be corrected. And, if the investigation finds that the deaths resulted from causes not involving misconduct, the public must still be given a credible explanation supported by evidence.

Because, the central question is not simply how 37 people died. It is what Nigeria will do, with the responsibility that comes with holding them in its custody. The urgent question is therefore, larger than one Facility or group of detainees: what do these deaths reveal about Nigeria’s detention system, and how many more lives remain at risk, while its safeguards remain weak?

 Custody is a Responsibility, not a Licence 

The State controls where detainees sleep, what they eat, whether they receive medical care, whether they can contact family or Counsel, and whether they can obtain help when something goes wrong. That power creates a corresponding duty to protect their life, safety, health and dignity.

When someone dies under State control, the central question is not simply whether they were suspected of an offence. It is: What happened to this person while the State had responsibility for them?

The response to the Niger State deaths must therefore, examine the custodial environment, not only the immediate medical cause of death.

A person arrested for an offence remains entitled to constitutional and legal protections, regardless of how serious or unpopular the alleged conduct may be.

The concern is not whether people should be held accountable for offences. It is whether accountability is pursued lawfully, humanely and effectively. A functioning justice system, must be capable of doing both.

Were these Deaths Preventable?

The investigation should establish the medical and factual circumstances, surrounding each death. It should determine:

• whether there was overcrowding, infectious disease or exposure to a harmful substance;

• whether detainees were medically screened on arrival and sick persons identified;

• whether medical assistance was requested and provided promptly;

• whether adequate water, sanitation, ventilation and food were available;

• whether detainees were subject to regular welfare checks; and

• whether the Facility operated within its authorised capacity.

These are human-rights and institutional-responsibility questions. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners – the Nelson Mandela Rules – set standards for accommodation, healthcare, sanitation, discipline, complaints and independent inspection. These are safeguards.

Nigeria Needs Stronger Independent Detention Monitoring

No institution should be the sole investigator and evaluator of its own detention practices. Independent monitoring protects detainees, and can also help responsible officers identify unsafe conditions before they become fatal.

Nigeria’s National Preventive Mechanism under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), to which Nigeria is a signatory, provides an important framework for regular visits to places of detention. Such monitoring is preventive, not adversarial. It can identify overcrowding, poor sanitation, inadequate healthcare and abusive practices before they become entrenched. The Government should strengthen the capacity and access of Independent Oversight Mechanisms to monitor all PDLs. The Government should effectively implement relevant provisions on oversight of detention and correctional facilities, including Section 34 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015 and Sections 20 and 21 of the Nigerian Correctional Service Act 2019.

Alternatives to Detention 

Not everyone who is arrested, needs to remain in custody. Where lawful, consider alternatives to detention and other non-custodial measures when continued detention is unnecessary, disproportionate, or unsupported by a demonstrated risk. Reducing unnecessary detention can ease pressure on overcrowded Facilities, and limit exposure to custodial risks. Such measures must, however, be accompanied by due process, judicial oversight and appropriate safeguards.

Priority Actions: What Must Happen Now

1. NSCDC: Protect life and preserve evidence

The NSCDC should:

• secure all detention facilities, registers, medical records, duty rosters, communications, CCTV footage and incident reports relevant to the deaths;

• suspend any officer reasonably suspected of interfering with evidence, intimidating witnesses or violating detainees’ rights, without prejudging criminal liability;

• medically screen every detainee and urgently refer anyone who is ill;

• establish mandatory welfare checks, emergency-response procedures and immediate notification of senior command when a detainee becomes seriously ill or dies;

• notify families promptly and provide information about medical care, death certification and the release of remains;

• ensure access to Counsel, family contact and confidential complaints mechanisms; and

• submit all NSCDC detention Facilities to urgent inspections covering occupancy, sanitation, ventilation, water, food, healthcare and fire safety.

2. Government: Establish enforceable national standards

The Federal Government should:

• require every custodial death to be reported immediately to an independent investigative authority and relevant human-rights institutions;

• establish uniform standards for detention capacity, medical screening, healthcare, documentation, family notification, use of force and emergency response;

• fund basic custodial healthcare, sanitation, safe water, ventilation and trained detention personnel;

• create a central, regularly updated register of persons held in NSCDC and other law-enforcement custody;

• require judicial review of continued detention and expand non-custodial measures;

• strengthen the National Preventive Mechanism and guarantee regular, unannounced access to all places of detention;

• publish information on custodial deaths, investigations, findings and implementation of recommendations; and

• ensure that families can obtain independent autopsies, legal assistance and effective remedies.

3. Investigators: Conduct an independent inquiry

The investigative body should:

• perate independently of the NSCDC chain of command and disclose its membership, terms of reference and timetable;

• preserve and examine all physical, documentary, digital and medical evidence;

• conduct independent autopsies and toxicology tests where appropriate;

• interview surviving detainees, families, officers, medical personnel and other witnesses confidentially;

• establish the timeline for each arrest, admission, illness, request for assistance, treatment and death;

• determine whether overcrowding, neglect, torture, assault, disease, unsafe conditions or delayed medical care contributed to the deaths;

• identify individual, supervisory and institutional responsibility;

• protect witnesses and whistleblowers from retaliation; and

• publish a clear report with findings, referrals for prosecution or discipline and deadlines for corrective action.

In addition to the above recommendations, independent monitors and civil society must maintain scrutiny.

The Reform Conversation Must Include NSCDC Facilities 

The incident should prompt a nationwide audit of NSCDC detention Facilities, focusing on lawful admission and release, occupancy limits, medical screening, emergency healthcare, sanitation, documentation, access to Lawyers and families, protection of vulnerable persons, complaints, use of force, staff training, independent monitoring and procedures for reporting deaths.

The objective is not to stigmatise the NSCDC or its personnel. Many officers work under difficult conditions. But, institutional respect requires institutional accountability, and a professional security agency should support systems that prevent deaths, abuse and misconduct. The humanity of people deprived of liberty must remain at the centre of the justice system. That principle does not excuse crime, prevent lawful enforcement or undermine public safety. A justice system that respects human dignity is better equipped to command public confidence, produce reliable evidence, prevent abuse and uphold the legitimacy of law enforcement.

The Niger State tragedy, should become a turning point. The investigation must establish what happened, authorities must provide credible answers to families, and those responsible must be held accountable. But, Nigeria must also address detention conditions across correctional centres, Police cells, NSCDC Facilities, military detention Facilities and other places where the State exercises control over liberty.

The priority is clear: protect detainees, preserve evidence, investigate independently, hold responsible persons and institutions accountable, and establish enforceable safeguards to prevent recurrence. The fundamental test of a State governed by law, is not how it treats those who possess power. It is how it treats those over whom it has power.

The 37 people who died in NSCDC custody, will never be able to tell their own story. We owe their families truth, survivors protection, officers due process, the public accountability, and future detainees a system where custody never means being hidden from scrutiny.

Thirty-seven people died in State custody. The response cannot stop at asking who was responsible. Nigeria must also determine what must change, so that it never happens again.

Prof Uju Agomoh, Chairperson, Nigerian Bar Association Section on Public Interest and Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL); President, Prisoners’ Rehabilitation And Welfare Action (PRAWA)

Deaths in Custody Are Never Just a Medical Event: What Minna Demands of the Nigerian State

Angela Uwandu Uzoma-Iwuchukwu

Background 

Thirty-seven people died in a Facility of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Minna, Niger State. Many of them were reportedly young people. They had been arrested on 15 and 16 September, 2026 on suspicion of illegal mining, and were found dead in the early hours of 17 September, within about two days of their arrest. They were suspects, not convicted persons, and they were wholly in the State’s hands. Survivors have described a desperate struggle to breathe in an overcrowded cell, and repeated calls for help as detainees began to collapse.

Numbers this large can blur into abstraction. They should not. Each of the 37 was someone’s child, sibling or neighbour. Each was, at the time of death, entirely in the hands of the Nigerian State.

The NSCDC has attributed the deaths, to a suspected disease outbreak. The Federal Government has announced an investigation, and suspended the Niger State Commandant pending its outcome. These steps are welcome. But, the precise circumstances and causes of death remain to be established, and a medical label, whatever it turns out to be, cannot close the matter. When people die in State custody, the legal question is not only what killed them; it is whether the State did everything reasonably possible, to keep them alive.

A Duty that Grows With Custody

When a person is free, the State owes them protection. When a person is deprived of his liberty, the State owes them far more, because the detainee cannot seek medical care, open a window, move to a safer room or leave. Their survival depends entirely on the authorities who hold them. Once the State takes away someone’s liberty, it takes on responsibility for their life, their health and their physical integrity. That is not a courtesy. It is the basic bargain of lawful detention. For that reason, international human rights law treats custody as a situation of heightened responsibility. The right to life carries a positive obligation: the State must not only refrain from arbitrary killing, but also take reasonable steps to protect life against foreseeable threats. Where the person at risk is in State detention, that duty is at its highest.

Human rights law describes State obligations through a familiar typology: to respect, to protect and to fulfil. To respect means that, State agents must not themselves violate the right. To protect means that the State must exercise due diligence to prevent harm from foreseeable threats, including those it did not itself create. To fulfil means that it must put in place the systems, resources and institutions that make the right real. In a detention Facility, all three duties fall on the same officials. Courts and treaty bodies, including in Europe and the Americas, have held that the duty to protect is triggered where authorities knew, or ought to have known, of a real and immediate risk to life and failed to take the reasonable measures within their powers to avert it. If the conditions survivors describe are confirmed, they were not hidden risks. They were visible to anyone who ran the Facility.

Two further consequences follow. First, the acts and omissions of a Federal agency such as the NSCDC, are attributable to the State. The failure, if one is established, is Nigeria’s. Second, where a person enters custody alive and dies there, the burden of explanation falls on the authorities who held them. Nor can scarcity excuse the failure. The UN Human Rights Committee has made clear that humane treatment of detainees, cannot depend on the material resources available to a State.

What the Convention Against Torture Requires 

Nigeria is a party to the UN Convention against Torture (UNCAT). We do not know that these deaths resulted from torture, and no one should assert it before an investigation reports. But, UNCAT is not confined to deliberate abuse. Article 2 obliges States to take effective measures to prevent torture in any territory under their jurisdiction, and the Committee against Torture has stressed that, responsibility can arise from omissions as well as acts. Article 16 extends the Convention’s core safeguards to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, a category that can include grossly overcrowded, poorly ventilated and medically neglectful conditions of detention.

Three further obligations bear directly on Minna. Article 11 requires States to keep custodial arrangements under systematic review, so that dangerous conditions are found before they kill. Article 12, which Article 16 extends to ill-treatment, requires a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there are reasonable grounds to believe that ill-treatment has occurred. Article 14, which the Committee has said applies equally to ill-treatment, guarantees victims, and in cases of death, their dependants, a right to redress. Nigeria has also ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which is built on regular independent visits to places of detention.

Children in the Cell

Reports suggest that many of those who died were young, and some may have been children. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a child is anyone under 18. Article 6 protects every child’s right to life, and requires States to ensure survival and development to the maximum extent possible. Article 37 requires that detention be a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate time, that children be treated with humanity and in a manner that takes account of their age, and that they be separated from adults unless it is in their best interests not to be.

We must also confront a difficulty, that practitioners in Nigeria know well. In much of the country, and particularly in parts of the North, many people have no birth certificate, and proof of age can be hard to establish. That reality is too often exploited. Lawyers and monitors have repeatedly observed a pattern in which law enforcement agencies record young people as adults, sometimes on appearance alone, so that the protections owed to children can be bypassed. The facts in Niger State are not yet known, and we do not allege that this happened in Minna. But, the investigation must not accept an official record of age at face value.

International standards answer this problem directly. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has said that where age is uncertain, the young person is entitled to a reasonable benefit of the doubt, and that any age assessment must be fair and must not place the burden of proof on the young person. Uncertainty about age is a reason for caution, never a licence to treat a child as an adult. The inquiry should therefore, establish, by independent means, the true age of every person who died and of every survivor, and should ask why so many young people were held in a single cell.

The Mandela Rules and the Minnesota Protocol

The UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the Nelson Mandela Rules, are not a treaty, but, they are the most authoritative statement of minimum standards for detention, and they apply in substance wherever the State holds people, whichever agency runs the Facility. 

Rule 1 demands respect for the inherent dignity of every prisoner. Rule 13 requires accommodation that meets the requirements of health, including minimum floor space, air volume and ventilation. Rule 24 makes health care a State responsibility, Rule 27 requires prompt access to medical attention in urgent cases, and Rule 11 requires young prisoners to be kept apart from adults. 

Rule 71 governs what must follow a death. Every custodial death must be reported to an authority independent of the prison administration, which must conduct a prompt, impartial and effective investigation, with relevant evidence preserved. The reason is simple: an institution cannot credibly investigate its own failures.

The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016) explains what that investigation must look like. Its principles are independence, promptness, thoroughness and transparency, and it requires an inquiry capable of determining whether failures by State authorities, including failures to take reasonable preventive measures, contributed to the deaths. For Minna, that means examining individual acts and omissions and systemic failures alike: overcrowding, ventilation, access to water and medical care, monitoring, emergency response, and the conduct of officials up the chain of command.

In practice, the investigation must be free from the influence of anyone potentially implicated. It must immediately preserve custody and medical records, CCTV footage and communications. It must include independent forensic examinations and autopsies, protect survivors and witnesses from intimidation, keep families informed and give them appropriate access. Where violations are established, it must lead to accountability, effective remedies and measures to prevent recurrence.

Beyond Minna

It is tempting to treat Minna as an aberration. It is more honestly read as a warning. Overcrowding, poor ventilation, limited access to water and healthcare, and weak oversight have long been raised by Lawyers and monitors, about places of detention across Nigeria. Prevention means opening every place of detention, whether run by the Prison Service, the Police, the NSCDC or any other agency, to regular independent inspection. It means enforcing capacity limits, keeping children out of detention wherever alternatives exist, and guaranteeing that a detainee who begins to collapse can summon help that arrives in time. These are not aspirations. They are obligations Nigeria accepted when it ratified these treaties.

The Federal Government has said it will investigate. The test now is whether that process is independent, transparent and capable of following the evidence wherever it leads, and whether its findings are made public. Every person deprived of liberty is entitled to humane treatment, and to the protection of life and dignity. When the State fails that duty and lives are lost, the least it owes the dead, and those who loved them, is the truth and accountability. The international human rights community will keep monitoring this case, and pressing for both.

Angela Uwandu Uzoma-Iwuchukwu, Country Director of Avocats Sans Frontières France/Lawyers Without Borders France

Deaths in Custody: The Niger NSCDC Tragedy and Accountability Questions Nigeria Must Answer

Okechukwu Nwanguma

Allegations 

The reported deaths of suspected illegal miners after their arrest and detention by the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) in Niger State, raise questions that go far beyond the immediate circumstances of the incident. They touch on one of the most persistent weaknesses in Nigeria’s criminal justice and law-enforcement system: what happens to citizens after the State takes away their liberty.

Reports concerning the precise number of deaths have varied. What is not in dispute, is that deaths occurred among persons taken into NSCDC custody. There have also been disturbing allegations about overcrowding, inadequate ventilation, detainees struggling to breathe and calling for assistance.

These claims must, of course, be established by evidence. But, their seriousness makes an independent investigation imperative.

The starting point is a simple legal and moral principle: whether the deceased were involved in illegal mining, is a completely different question from whether the authorities fulfilled their duty to protect them while they were in custody.

Illegal mining is a serious problem. It has economic, environmental and security consequences, and the Government has both the authority and responsibility to enforce the law. But, law enforcement must itself remain within the law. 

Arrest and Detention 

A person arrested on suspicion of committing an offence, does not cease to possess fundamental rights. Such a person remains presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law, and retains the rights to life, dignity, humane treatment and due process.

Indeed, detention increases rather than diminishes the responsibility of the State. Once the State deprives individuals of their liberty, it assumes a heightened duty of care because detainees can no longer independently provide for their safety, medical needs or basic conditions of survival.

 This is why deaths in custody, require more than administrative explanations.

The Questions that Must be Answered

The Niger incident demands answers to several straightforward questions.

How many persons were arrested? How many were detained in the affected facility and how many died? What was the authorised capacity of the detention Facility? How many detainees were confined in each cell?

What were the ventilation, sanitation and general conditions of detention? Were the detainees medically screened, when they were admitted into custody?

If some detainees became ill or experienced respiratory distress, when did officers first become aware of it? There have been allegations that detainees called or banged on the cell door for assistance. Did this happen? If so, how did the officers on duty respond?

When was medical assistance requested? Where were affected detainees taken for treatment, and what treatment was administered?

These are questions that should be capable of objective verification through custody registers, duty rosters, medical records, incident reports, communication records, witness testimony and, where available, CCTV recordings.

Most importantly, independent medical examinations should establish the cause, manner and approximate time of each death. It is not enough to speculate that, detainees might have died from an illness or disease. Such an explanation must be supported by credible medical and forensic evidence.

Can an Agency Investigate Itself?

The NSCDC’s reported decision to investigate the deaths is necessary, but an internal investigation cannot be the final word.

The institution whose officers exercised custody over the deceased, has an obvious institutional interest in the outcome. This does not mean that, every internal investigation will necessarily be dishonest. It means simply that, public confidence requires an additional mechanism possessing demonstrable independence from the agency concerned.

The Federal Government should therefore, ensure an independent investigation involving the National Human Rights Commission and other competent authorities, outside the NSCDC chain of command.

Independent forensic post-mortem examinations should be conducted, accompanied by appropriate laboratory and toxicological examinations where necessary. Families should be properly notified, identified bodies should be accounted for, and relatives should have reasonable access to information concerning the investigation.

Evidence must also be preserved immediately.

 CCTV recordings, custody registers, arrest records, duty rosters, medical records, communication logs and incident reports must be secured against disappearance, alteration or destruction. Survivors should be interviewed confidentially, and protected against intimidation or retaliation.

Accountability cannot depend exclusively, on documents produced by the institution being investigated.

A Wider Problem of Custodial Safeguards

The Niger deaths also expose a broader weakness, in Nigeria’s detention system.

Custodial safeguards tend to focus overwhelmingly, on the Nigeria Police Force. Yet, several other security and law-enforcement agencies possess powers that result in arrest and detention. The same fundamental standards must apply, wherever the State deprives a person of liberty.

This is why mechanisms for independent monitoring of detention Facilities, need to extend beyond conventional Police cells. The Police Duty Solicitor Scheme and related mechanisms for early access to legal assistance, demonstrate the importance of independent actors gaining access to persons shortly after arrest.

Nigeria should consider how similar safeguards can be institutionalised, across detention Facilities operated by other law-enforcement and security agencies. Independent inspection, accurate custody registers, prompt access to Lawyers and family members, medical screening on admission, periodic welfare checks and clearly documented procedures for medical emergencies, should be minimum standards rather than optional administrative practices.

Mass Arrests Present an Additional Danger

An agency should not arrest numbers of people that exceed its capacity, to detain them safely. Overcrowding is not merely an inconvenience. In poorly ventilated spaces, particularly where detainees have underlying health conditions or remain confined for prolonged periods, it can become life-threatening.

Operational planning must therefore, include detention capacity. If an agency intends to arrest dozens of suspects, it must first determine where those persons can lawfully and humanely be held.

From Investigation to Accountability

An independent investigation, is only the beginning. If the evidence establishes criminal negligence, deliberate mistreatment, obstruction of medical assistance, falsification of records or other unlawful conduct, those responsible should face appropriate criminal or disciplinary proceedings. Where institutional failures contributed to the deaths, responsibility should not automatically stop with the most junior officers who happened to be on duty. Investigators should examine command decisions, detention policies, supervision, staffing and the adequacy of Facilities.

Families must also have access to effective remedies, including compensation, where official negligence or unlawful conduct is established.

Ultimately, this case presents a basic test of the rule of law.

People entered a Government detention Facility alive. A number of them subsequently, died. The burden therefore, rests heavily on the State to provide a credible, evidence-based and independently verifiable explanation of what happened between those two points.

The issue should not be reduced to competing narratives between Government agencies, survivors, journalists or civil society organisations. Nor should legitimate concern about illegal mining, obscure the more fundamental issue.

The question is whether people deprived of their liberty by the Nigerian State, can be confident that the State will protect their lives while investigating allegations against them. The answer must come, not from assurances, but from transparent investigation, forensic evidence and accountability.

The dead deserve the truth. Their families deserve answers. And, Nigerians deserve the assurance that no person taken into State custody will disappear behind detention walls and emerge dead, without an independent accounting of what happened.

Okechukwu Nwanguma, Executive Director, Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC)