Who Ordered the Arrest of 37 Niger Mining Detainees? Questions Beyond the Cells

By Ibrahim Maigida Shehu, Esq.
Writing from Maitumbi, Minna

The deaths of 37 young people arrested during an operation against suspected illegal mining at M.I. Wushishi/Lukoto in Niger State raise questions that cannot be answered by suspending a commandant or announcing another investigation.

The Niger State Government has ordered inquiries and autopsies, while the police and other security agencies have reportedly commenced separate investigations. The Niger State Commandant of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) has also been suspended.

Those are procedural steps. They are not, by themselves, an explanation of how 37 people came to die in custody.

The first question is straightforward: Who ordered the arrests and who authorised the operation?

The victims were not publicly described as bandits or terrorists. Many were reportedly young people engaged in artisanal mining, apparently trying to earn money to support themselves and their families. That does not place anyone above the law. If offences were committed, the appropriate response is investigation, prosecution and, where established, conviction.

But detention cannot become a death sentence.

Until the results of the autopsies and forensic investigations are made public, explanations such as disease outbreak, poisoning, overcrowding or suffocation remain allegations. They must be tested by evidence rather than assumed.

The Mining Site Must Also Be Examined

The investigation should not stop at the detention facilities.

There have been allegations in Minna that influential individuals have, for some time, sought to obtain control of or benefit from the M.I. Wushishi/Lukoto mining area because of its mineral potential. Those allegations remain unproven and should be treated as such.

More recently, however, local discussions have attached allegations of possible interest in the site to the highest levels of the Niger State Government. There are also claims that a proposal may be under consideration to relocate residents of M.I. Wushishi under the guise of environmental remediation.

These are serious claims. They are not evidence of wrongdoing.

That is precisely why they should be investigated rather than dismissed as gossip.

If there was a pre-existing commercial, political or administrative interest in the location, the public deserves to know whether any application for a mining licence, concession, partnership or other commercial right had been made in respect of the area.

Investigators should establish:

• Who currently holds, or has applied for, rights relating to the mining area?
• Were there previous attempts to acquire or control the site?
• Was any licence, concession or commercial proposal pending before the arrests?
• Did any government agency have a relocation, environmental-cleanup or redevelopment plan for M.I. Wushishi before the operation?
• Who authorised the raid?
• Was the operation discussed or approved at a State Security Council meeting?
• Did any person or organisation with an interest in the site have contact with officials involved in the operation?
• What quantity of minerals has historically been extracted from the area, and who has benefited from that production?

Let the documents answer these questions.

Follow the Mining Paper Trail

Niger State’s mineral resources cannot be treated as an orphan file.

Mining licences and leases are principally administered at the federal level, while state authorities have important responsibilities concerning activities taking place within the state.

The Director-General of Mineral Resources, Ademola Banjo, was appointed in March 2024 by the state government. Public records indicate that he previously worked in banking, including at First City Monument Bank, and has a role in the state’s mineral-resource administration and enforcement structures.

That institutional arrangement raises another legitimate question: Where are the records showing what is being mined, by whom, under what authority and through which channels the minerals leave Niger State?

The public should be able to see the relevant licensing records, enforcement reports, task-force minutes and mineral-production data.

The Code of Conduct Bureau and, where appropriate, the Code of Conduct Tribunal should also be invited to examine any matters within their lawful jurisdiction, including relevant asset declarations and possible conflicts of interest involving public officials.

That is not an accusation against any individual. It is a call for transparent verification.

Thirty-Seven Deaths Demand More Than Administrative Action

The central issue is not whether illegal mining should be confronted. It should.

Nor is the issue whether those who commit proven offences should face the law. They should.

The issue is whether people arrested by the state can die in custody without a full public accounting of what happened.

Being accused of illegal mining is not a licence for anyone to die in detention. And earning a living through artisanal mining, without more, is not the same thing as waging war against the state.

The investigation should therefore establish, publicly and transparently, the circumstances surrounding the operation: the government decision that preceded it, the officer who authorised it, the units involved, the number of people arrested, the conditions in which they were detained, the medical treatment they received, the timeline of the deaths, and the forensic cause of each death.

It should also examine what happened to the mining site after the arrests and whether any person or organisation subsequently gained access, control or commercial advantage.

If there is nothing improper behind the allegations circulating in Minna, documentary evidence and an independent investigation should be capable of establishing that.

If there is something to them, the same evidence should expose it.

Gossip is not proof. But neither is official silence a substitute for proof.

The 37 families deserve answers.

Niger State deserves answers.

And Nigerians deserve to know not only how 37 people died in custody, but what happened to the ground they were arrested from, who authorised the operation, and who ultimately benefits from what lies beneath it.