By Isiaka Mustapha, Editor-in-Chief, People’s Security Monitor

The deaths of 37 suspected illegal miners in Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) custody in Niger State are a grave national tragedy. The victims were human beings whose lives mattered, and their families deserve truth, justice and accountability. But the seriousness of the tragedy makes it even more important that public commentary remains anchored in evidence. Solomon Dalung’s sweeping assertions about Professor Ahmed Abubakar Audi and alleged “systemic corruption” within the NSCDC go considerably beyond what has so far been established publicly. Dalung is entitled to demand a rigorous investigation. What is objectionable is the leap from an incident involving officers in a State Command to suggestions that the NSCDC’s national leadership may be part of an established system of corruption, extortion or concealment.

At present, the Federal Government has already taken steps to establish the circumstances surrounding the deaths and determine responsibility. The proper course is therefore to allow the investigation to do its work. Dalung’s statement that those “higher up either participate, benefit or knowingly tolerate the practice” is a serious assertion. But an assertion is not evidence. No established finding has shown that Professor Audi participated in, benefited from, authorised or knowingly tolerated extortion connected with the Niger incident. Until investigators establish such facts, attaching those possibilities to the national leadership of the Corps risks creating an impression of guilt by association.

His argument that the matter cannot end with the suspension of officers in the Niger State Command is, in principle, understandable. Accountability should indeed extend as far as evidence takes it. The problem begins when that legitimate principle is used to insinuate that responsibility must necessarily travel upward to the Commandant General. The investigation should determine the chain of responsibility rather than public commentary deciding it in advance.

Dalung’s call for scrutiny of bank transactions, communications, detention records, complaints and internal reports can be part of a legitimate investigation where evidence warrants such inquiries. But presenting those possibilities alongside references to financial benefit and systemic corruption risks creating a narrative that appears to assume the misconduct it is supposed to investigate. There is a fundamental difference between asking investigators to establish whether something happened and publicly creating the impression that it happened.

Most troubling is Dalung’s specific demand that Professor Audi should step aside or be suspended “for credibility.” That conclusion does not automatically follow from Audi being Commandant General. The Federal Government has already established an investigative process and taken disciplinary measures against officers connected with the Niger incident. Until the investigation produces findings, there is no factual basis for treating the NSCDC’s national leadership as guilty by association.

There is also a danger in treating command responsibility as synonymous with personal responsibility. The NSCDC is a nationwide security organisation with more than 63,000 personnel deployed across the federation. An organisation of that size necessarily operates through commands, formations and layers of supervision. Holding the head personally responsible for every alleged misconduct committed by personnel under the institution would be inconsistent with evidence based accountability. Professor Audi’s public record cannot simply be erased from the discussion because of one tragic incident. Under his leadership, the NSCDC has expanded its operational responsibilities in the areas of critical infrastructure protection, anti vandalism operations, illegal mining enforcement, agricultural security and protection of schools. The Corps has also reported thousands of arrests involving offences such as vandalism, illegal mining, kidnapping and economic sabotage.

The establishment and deployment of the Mining Marshals have strengthened the Federal Government’s efforts to confront illegal mining and protect Nigeria’s mineral resources. The Agro Rangers have expanded security support for agricultural communities, while the Safe Schools initiative has strengthened the Corps’ contribution to protecting educational institutions. These are measurable institutional interventions that should form part of any balanced assessment of Audi’s tenure.

The Federal Government’s decision to renew Professor Audi’s appointment for another five years in 2026 is also a documented fact. The renewal followed the administration’s assessment of his performance and institutional leadership. It does not place him above scrutiny, but neither should a former public office holder’s allegation be treated as sufficient reason to disregard the professional record of a serving security chief.None of these achievements means that Audi or the NSCDC should be protected if evidence eventually establishes wrongdoing. If an independent investigation establishes negligence, abuse, corruption or failure of duty at any level, the responsible individuals should face the appropriate consequences. But justice has to operate in both directions: it must punish the guilty without condemning the innocent.

Dalung should therefore be more careful to distinguish between investigation and accusation. Saying investigators should “follow the money” may be rhetorically powerful, but investigators must follow evidence wherever it leads, including evidence that clears individuals. The same standard of fairness demanded for the victims must also apply to Professor Audi and every officer whose name becomes associated with the investigation. The Niger tragedy should not be transformed into a political campaign against an officer whose career and institutional reputation were built over decades. Professor Audi’s service record should be assessed on facts, documented achievements and the eventual findings of the investigation, rather than insinuations arising from an unresolved incident.

There is nothing wrong with strong criticism of the NSCDC where criticism is supported by facts. What is wrong is allowing a national tragedy involving the deaths of human beings to become a vehicle for unproven allegations against a named individual. The families of the deceased deserve something more serious than political rhetoric: they deserve the truth about how their relatives died, who was responsible, what failures occurred and what must change.Dalung should therefore allow the investigation to speak before making the Commandant General the subject of a public prosecution by rhetoric. If evidence ultimately establishes responsibility at any level, Nigerians will expect the law to apply without fear or favour. If the evidence does not implicate Professor Audi, his reputation should not be damaged simply because he occupies the highest office in the Corps.

The most responsible response to the Niger tragedy is neither silence nor a premature conviction of the NSCDC leadership. It is a transparent investigation, credible evidence, due process and accountability wherever the facts lead. Human lives are too sacred to become instruments of political confrontation. The Niger tragedy must produce justice, not political theatre; evidence, not presumption; and institutional reform, not an attempt to destroy a hard earned reputation before investigators have spoken.