Follow Us on Google
The Commander of the Mining Marshals, Assistant Commandant of Corps (ACC) John Onoja Attah, has firmly rejected claims linking the specialised NSCDC unit to the controversial September 16 operation at M.I. Wushishi Housing Estate in Minna, Niger State, declaring that the suspended Niger State Commandant, Suberu Siyaka Aniviye, lacked the authority to deploy its operatives.
Onoja Attah, in a statement issued by his office at the NSCDC National Headquarters in Abuja, described the claim attributed to Aniviye in a Daily Post publication of October 16, 2026, as false and misleading, insisting that no Mining Marshals personnel participated in the operation now under investigation by the Justice Mohammed Mohammed Commission of Inquiry.
The suspended commandant was quoted as saying that he visited the mining site on September 15 before deploying Mining Marshals to the area. But Onoja Attah dismissed the assertion, arguing that it misrepresented the command structure and operational jurisdiction of the specialised unit.
“No Mining Marshals operative is attached to the Niger State Command or to any State Command of the Corps for that matter,” he stated, stressing that the unit operates exclusively from the National Headquarters under the direct command, control and operational directives of the Commandant-General, in collaboration with the ministry of Solid Minerals Development.
He added that a state commandant had no authority to deploy Mining Marshals for any operation, even as the Commandant-General had in several public fora indicated that the Mining Marshals were not involved in the operation, and that as the Commander of Mining Marahals operations, he was not aware of the said operation until the news of the unfortunate incidence became public; making the acclaimed involvement of Mining Marahals not merely inaccurate but inconsistent with its established chain of command.
“Our operational records confirm that at no time were Mining Marshals personnel deployed or involved in the said operation,” Onoja Attah said, warning against attempts to associate the unit with the custodial deaths currently being investigated.
The clarification comes amid heightened public scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the deaths in Niger State and the investigation into the conduct of security personnel involved. Onoja Attah’s intervention seeks to draw a clear institutional distinction between the Mining Marshals and the operation under investigation, insisting that accountability must be anchored on verifiable facts rather than unsubstantiated claims.
The commander also defended the operational record of the Mining Marshals, describing its enforcement activities under the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007, as professional, civil and guided by the law.
According to him, the unit has maintained strict adherence to its rules of engagement since its establishment, with no record of human rights violations in its operations across the country and no pending Fundamental Human Rights Enforcement suit against it in any Nigerian court.
He attributed the unit’s operational discipline to the standard operating procedures instituted under the leadership of the NSCDC Commandant-General, Prof. Ahmed Abubakar Audi, mni, OFR and the Honourable Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dr. Dele Alake.
The Mining Marshals, he said, remained committed to sanitising Nigeria’s solid minerals sector and would not allow what he described as erroneous publications to distract it from its statutory responsibilities.
Onoja Attah urged media organisations to verify information concerning the unit’s operations directly from its National Headquarters, underscoring the need for responsible reporting on matters involving security agencies and allegations of deaths in custody.
The commander’s rebuttal places the question of operational responsibility squarely before the ongoing inquiry: who authorised and conducted the September 16 operation, and which personnel were actually involved? Those questions, he maintained, must be answered through evidence and established command records, not through claims that wrongly implicate a specialised unit.
As the commission continues its investigation, the distinction between institutional clarification and the determination of individual responsibility remains critical. The Mining Marshals has disowned the operation; the inquiry must now establish the facts, identify the personnel involved and determine accountability without prejudice to its findings.
