Nigerians Demand Accountability, Not Political Rhetoric –By Matthew Ma

At times, I grow weary of our government’s rhetoric, especially after a tragedy. Each time an event of this nature occurs, we hear familiar phrases such as “We will bring those responsible to justice,” “We must ensure that justice is served,” and “We will establish a panel to investigate.” Yet despite these assurances, I have seldom witnessed true justice. When the government fails to address citizens’ pressing concerns, frustration inevitably builds. In such moments, condolences, reassurances, and carefully crafted press releases fall short of answering the urgent questions weighing on the public. The recent deaths of 37 detainees in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defense Corps (NSCDC) in Minna, Niger State, raise significant concerns that demand immediate attention. These tragic deaths have sparked widespread protests, a curfew, the suspension of 24 security personnel, and multiple high-level investigations initiated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. However, for the families of the deceased—many of whom were teenagers—the fundamental question remains achingly clear: How did 37 individuals die while in state custody, and who will be held accountable for this tragedy?

The detainees were reportedly arrested in connection with illegal mining. The cause of death remains a topic of intense debate, with official accounts, preliminary intelligence (which is not legally binding on any individual or authority), and survivor testimonies pointing in different directions. The NSCDC’s initial stance indicated that the detainees appeared to have died following a suspected outbreak of disease, emphasizing the need for a medical examination to determine the exact cause. Preliminary intelligence from AFP and the governor’s statements suggest that the 37 individuals died due to overcrowding and inadequate ventilation within the detention facility. Governor Bago publicly stated that possible suffocation from overcrowding, along with exposure to hazardous substances (potentially inhaled at the mining site), are among the factors currently under investigation. He also reported concerning signs observed on the bodies, such as skin peeling, foam emerging from their mouths, and blood around their noses, mouths, and ears—which imply exposure to chemicals or highly toxic substances.

Survivor accounts describe widespread panic in the cell, which they called “crammed” and poorly ventilated. One survivor, Dauda Shehu, told journalists that they were screaming for help as people died one after another, yet their pleas were not believed. Another survivor alleged that a substance was sprayed inside the cell just before some detainees began to collapse—a claim that Governor Bago said “cannot be ruled out” pending further investigations. Regardless of the legal implications of these allegations, detention fundamentally alters the state’s obligations toward individuals. When citizens are deprived of their liberty, the institution responsible for their custody assumes a duty to protect their lives and ensure humane detention conditions.

This principle lies at the heart of the rule of law. The state holds legitimate coercive powers to arrest, detain, and prosecute people within the bounds set by law. However, these powers come with corresponding duties and constraints. Detention does not negate personhood, nor does an accusation of criminal behavior diminish an individual’s rights. Therefore, the deaths in Niger State necessitate an investigation that considers not only the immediate medical causes but also the institutional circumstances surrounding these incidents. The most pressing questions are empirical: What were the detention conditions? How many detainees were at the facility? Were any detainees unwell or injured before their arrest? What medical screening and treatment were available? What measures were in place for ventilation, water supply, sanitation, and emergency procedures? Had there been prior complaints about illness or overcrowding? Were medical personnel summoned, and when did they arrive? What procedures governed detainee admission, monitoring, and release? Were any of the detainees minors, and did the NSCDC adhere to child protection protocols? Were arrest warrants issued, and did they arrange legal counsel, notify families, and arrange court appearances? How many days did those arrested remain in detention before they died?

The answers to these complex questions stem from the need to provide a credible, thorough explanation of custodial deaths. Determining that a detainee succumbed to a specific disease does not necessarily address whether adequate preventive and medical measures were in place. Likewise, establishing overcrowding does not automatically imply individual criminal liability. Thus, the investigation must meticulously reconstruct the sequence of events to determine whether identifiable failures of duty contributed to the deaths. The Federal Government’s decision to establish an independent investigative committee and to suspend personnel associated with the detention facility exemplifies an institutional response to the incident. However, the response’s effectiveness hinges on transparency, procedural independence, evidentiary integrity, and the dissemination of findings. This matters because delays, limited transparency, or uncertainty about implementing recommendations can erode public trust in government investigations.

The incident in Niger State highlights a broader issue within detention systems: the relative invisibility of people once they enter institutional custody. Arrests remove individuals from their usual social environments and place them within an administrative framework that is often inaccessible to family members and the broader public, significantly increasing their vulnerability. This underscores the need for independent oversight. Custodial institutions should not be evaluated solely on their ability to detain people. Instead, they must also be assessed on their capacity to preserve life, provide adequate healthcare, maintain humane conditions, ensure access to legal protections, and facilitate effective complaint mechanisms and external monitoring.

The issue at hand goes beyond the fact that 37 detainees died from illness, environmental conditions, or other causes. It raises a deeper institutional question about whether the systems established to protect individuals in custody are functioning as intended. This distinction is vital. A rights-based approach to detention does not require reducing law enforcement capabilities. On the contrary, clearly defined custodial standards can strengthen legitimate enforcement by setting boundaries on how coercive power may be exercised. Security and human rights need not be mutually exclusive. For institutions to function effectively, both are essential.

This tragedy should prompt a thorough evaluation in two key areas. First, we must reassess detention practices, particularly overcrowding, medical screening, emergency response, record-keeping, communication with families, access to legal counsel, and independent oversight. Second, this unfortunate incident highlights the need for accountability that extends beyond identifying individual officers. When systemic issues—such as institutional procedures, inadequate resources, insufficient oversight, or administrative failures—contribute to harm, focusing solely on individual responsibility may leave the underlying problems unaddressed. Therefore, the appropriate response must be both immediate and structural: we need to establish the facts surrounding the 37 deaths, determine accountability for leadership and those responsible for detention, deliver justice, support the affected families, and evaluate whether institutional reforms are necessary to prevent future incidents.

Above all, this incident should reaffirm a fundamental principle of democratic governance: the state’s authority over detained individuals entails a corresponding duty of care. The credibility of Nigeria’s justice and security institutions will ultimately be measured not by the number of official statements issued after this tragedy, but by whether the investigation uncovers the truth, assigns responsibility fairly, ensures affected families receive justice, and translates lessons learned into meaningful reform. The public deserves more than reassurances; it deserves a substantive, evidence-based account of what happened to the 37 individuals who entered state custody and did not emerge alive. This demand goes beyond a request for information; it calls for institutional accountability.

Finally, the deaths of 37 individuals in state custody are more than a tragedy for Niger State; they signal a national reckoning. If 37 suspected illegal miners can lose their lives in a cell with no independent witness, the promise of justice for every Nigerian held by security forces becomes meaningless. Thus, Nigerians demand accountability, not political statements.

Rev. Ma, S.J., is a Jesuit priest and public policy analyst. He currently writes from Abuja, Nigeria.