The deaths of 37 suspected miners in the custody of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) have raised not only questions about what happened inside the detention facility, but also about how those arrested were initially classified.
Security expert Group Captain Sadeeq Garba Shehu has cautioned against prematurely describing people arrested at mining sites as illegal miners.
“If I go to a mining site and I see people, what I see are miners.”
According to Shehu, determining whether someone is operating legally, illegally or as an artisanal miner requires investigation and evidence, rather than assumptions based simply on where the person was found.
He argued that the legal status of those arrested should ultimately be established through investigation and due process.
The distinction is important because artisanal mining and illegal mining are not necessarily interchangeable terms.
Artisanal and small-scale mining can be a legitimate form of economic activity when conducted within the applicable regulatory framework. The fact that someone is physically present at a mining location therefore does not, on its own, establish that the person has committed an offence.
As Shehu put it, labelling people before the facts are established can be premature.
But his second point is even more important in the context of the Niger State deaths.
Even if an investigation ultimately establishes that some of those detained were involved in illegal mining, that would not remove the state's responsibility for their safety while in custody.
A person does not lose the right to humane treatment simply because they are suspected of committing an offence.
Once the state takes someone into custody, responsibility for that person's basic welfare becomes a matter of public accountability.
That includes appropriate detention conditions, access to food and water, medical attention, adequate ventilation and protection from preventable harm.
This is particularly significant because reports surrounding the Niger State deaths have raised allegations about overcrowding and ventilation inside the detention facility. Survivors and relatives have described conditions that they say became increasingly difficult to endure.
Those accounts still require investigation. They should not automatically be treated as established facts.
But they also cannot simply be dismissed.
The government's investigation therefore has two connected responsibilities.
First, it must establish who the detainees were and what they were doing at the mining sites.
Second, and independently, it must establish what happened to them after they were taken into custody.
Those are separate questions.
A person can be guilty of an offence and still have rights in detention.
A person can also be innocent of the alleged offence and still be detained while an investigation takes place.
That is why the language used by authorities matters.
Calling someone an “illegal miner” before the relevant facts and legal processes have established that status can turn an allegation into an apparent conclusion.
The same principle applies to the cause of death.
Authorities have not yet established a definitive explanation for all 37 deaths. Various possibilities, including disease, overcrowding, suffocation and exposure to hazardous substances, have been raised in public reporting and official statements.
The investigation must therefore follow the evidence rather than begin with a predetermined conclusion.
The families deserve nothing less.
For them, the issue is not simply whether their relatives were miners.
It is whether their loved ones were alive when they entered government custody, what happened while they were there, and why they did not come home.
Illegal mining, if proven, is a separate question from the state's duty of care.
Both questions must be answered.
Comments
Post a Comment