By Desire Emmanuel
The family of a corps member who was killed at a community in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja, has rejected the account given by the Nigerian Army on the death of the corps member, saying the account was full of lies.
The Army had in a statement on Sunday said the corps member, Abdulsamad Jamiu, died during a crossfire between soldiers of the Guard Brigade and armed robbers in the early hours of Saturday, April 25, at Shagari Estate, Dei-Dei, Abuja.
However, in a statement issued late on Sunday night, the family said the various accounts given by eyewitnesses were different from the account given by the army, describing it as false, misleading and an affront to the memory of the young man.
Text of the statement: “This statement is issued on behalf of the immediate family of the late Abdulsamad Jamiu, who was killed in the early hours of Saturday, 25th April 2026, at his residence in Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters, Abuja.
“It is issued in direct and formal response to the account of events published by the Nigerian Army, which the family, supported by physical evidence, witness testimony, and the military’s own partial admissions, categorically rejects as false, misleading and an affront to the memory of an innocent young man.
“The family is not issuing this statement in anger alone. They are issuing it in the interest of truth, accountability, and the rule of law — values which the Nigerian Army, as an institution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is constitutionally obligated to uphold.
“The following facts are not in dispute and form the foundation of this rebuttal:
1. At approximately 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, 25th April 2026, personnel of the Nigerian Army entered the residential premises of the Jamiu family at Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters, Abuja.
2. At the time of the incident, Abdulsamad Jamiu, aged 24 years, was present inside his room within the family residence. His sister was also present in the house. Their parents were absent, having travelled to Okene to attend a burial ceremony.
3. Nigerian Army personnel discharged a firearm at close range through the door of Abdulsamad’s room. The shot struck Abdulsamad Jamiu in the head, killing him instantly.
4. The trajectory of the bullet- confirmed by physical examination of the bullet hole, which runs from the room door to the wall of the room–conclusively establishes that the shot was fired from outside the room, through the closed door, into the room where Abdulsamad Jamiu was situated.
5. On hearing the gunshot, Abdulsamad’s sister rushed downstairs, whereupon she was instructed by the soldiers present to go outside and “calm down.”
6. Neighbours who heard the gunshot contacted the community vigilante group. Upon their arrival, vigilante members were instructed by the personnel to mop up the blood and flush it — a directive which, in itself, raises grave questions about the soldier’s intent to preserve an evidence-intact crime scene.
7. The body of Abdulsamad Jamiu was subsequently conveyed to Kubwa General Hospital by the police, who had arrived at the scene. The family was compelled to endure hours of statements and administrative paperwork before being granted access to retrieve their son’s remains for burial.
8. The army personnel present at the scene, when confronted by the family regarding the killing of their son, acknowledged that the shooting of Abdulsamad Jamiu was a mistake and that they had killed an innocent person. This acknowledgement was made in the presence of the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) and was recorded in a written statement.
“The Nigerian Army has publicly claimed that its personnel were engaged in active pursuit of armed robbers and that the fatal shooting of Abdulsamad Jamiu occurred in the course of an exchange of gunfire.
“The family rejects this account in its entirety and presents the following point-by-point rebuttal, each supported by verifiable evidence or the absence of evidence where the military bears the burden of proof:
Ground 1: The Physical Evidence Disproves an “Exchange of Gunfire”
The military’s claim of an exchange of gunfire is irreconcilable with the physical evidence present at the scene.
The bullet trajectory — from the door of Abdulsamad’s room to the interior wall — establishes, without ambiguity, that the fatal shot was fired by military personnel who were standing on the exterior side of a closed door, directly into the room where Abdulsamad Jamiu was located. This is not consistent with a firefight.
“This is not consistent with a pursuit scenario. This is consistent with military personnel discharging a lethal weapon through a closed door at a person they could not see and who posed no identified, verified, or established threat.
“An exchange of gunfire presupposes an adversary who is armed and actively firing. No such adversary has been identified, produced, or accounted for. No weapon was recovered from the scene. No shell casings attributed to any party other than the military have been documented.
“Ground 2: The Military Entered the Premises Covertly, Not in Lawful Pursuit
“The gate to the premises was intact and undamaged at the time of the incident. The point of entry used by the military personnel was the fence, which they scaled. The remnants of fallen barbed wire at the fence remain visible and physically verifiable at the scene to this day.
“The military proceeded from the fence and entered through the parlour door — and from there to Abdulsamad’s room.
“This is not the entry pattern of a unit responding to an active armed robbery in lawful hot pursuit. This is the entry pattern of a covert, unannounced, and unlawful forced entry into a private residence. It raises an immediate and unanswered question: if the military were in legitimate pursuit of armed criminals who had entered these premises, why did they not announce their presence, secure the perimeter, or engage any standard protocol? Why was the primary — and apparently sole — action taken upon entering the home the discharge of a weapon through a closed bedroom door?
“Ground 3: No Robbery Was Reported in the Community That Night
“The community vigilante group, whose members are both geographically proximate to and functionally responsible for monitoring security incidents in Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters, has confirmed that no armed robbery was reported in that community on the night of 24th to 25th April 2026.
“The vigilante group, by the nature of their role, is the first point of contact for community security incidents. It is implausible, and the family submits it is impossible, that an armed robbery serious enough to warrant active military pursuit and an alleged exchange of gunfire would occur in that community without the vigilante group having any awareness of it whatsoever — before, during, or after the alleged incident.
“If armed robbers were present and active in Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters that night, the army is called upon to produce: the identity of the complainant who reported the robbery; the time and channel through which the report was made; the location where the robbery was alleged to have occurred; and any evidence that a robbery took place.
The family anticipates that no such evidence will be forthcoming, because the evidence does not exist.
“Ground 4: Only One Gunshot Was Heard — the Shot That Killed Abdulsamad
“Every witness in the community — neighbours, vigilante members, and residents — is consistent on one critical point: the only gunshot heard that night was the shot fired inside the Jamiu family residence. The shot that killed Abdulsamad Jamiu.
“There was no preceding gunfire. There was no subsequent gunfire. There was no audible exchange of any kind. In a community where residents are awake enough at 2:00 a.m. to hear a single gunshot, call the vigilante, and emerge to investigate, it is not credible that a running firefight between armed robbers and military personnel would go entirely unheard by everyone except the military themselves.
“The family puts this question plainly: if there was an exchange of gunfire, where is the sound of that exchange? Where are the witnesses to that exchange? Where are the bullet holes, the spent cartridges, or any physical artifact of that exchange anywhere outside the room of Abdulsamad Jamiu?
“The answer is that there are none. Because there was no exchange of gunfire. There was a military unit that entered a private home without lawful authority, and killed an unarmed young man through his bedroom door.
“Ground 5: The Military Has Already Admitted Culpability
“Perhaps the most damning aspect of the military’s public statement is that it contradicts what the military’s own personnel admitted in private.
“When the family confronted the soldiers at the scene and demanded to know why their son had been killed, the soldiers acknowledged that the killing of Abdulsamad Jamiu was a mistake.
“They admitted that they had killed an innocent person. This admission was not made casually. It was made in the presence of the Divisional Police Officer and was captured in a formal written statement.
“The military cannot simultaneously admit in a police-supervised setting that they killed an innocent person by mistake, and then publish a public account implying that the deceased was caught in a legitimate security operation gone wrong. These two positions cannot coexist. One is the truth. The other is a fabrication. The family submits that the admission made before the DPO is the truth, and that the public statement is the fabrication.
“The family, through this statement, formally poses the following questions to the Nigerian Army, and calls upon relevant authorities — including the Nigerian Army’s Human Rights Desk, the National Human Rights Commission, the Inspector General of Police, and any relevant judicial or legislative oversight body — to compel clear, verified, and documented answers:
1. Which unit and which commanding officer authorised the operation that resulted in the death of Abdulsamad Jamiu on 25th April 2026?
2. What was the precise legal basis and authorising order for military personnel to enter a private residential premises at Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters at 2:00 a.m. on 25th April 2026?
3. Who reported the alleged armed robbery that the military claims to have been pursuing, and through which channel was that report made?
4. Why did military personnel scale the perimeter fence of a private home rather than enter through the gate or announce their presence?
5. Why was a firearm discharged through a closed bedroom door without any confirmed identification of who or what was behind it?
6. Where are the alleged armed robbers whom the military claims to have been pursuing? Were any arrested? Were any injured? Was any weapon recovered?
7. Why were community vigilante members instructed to mop up and flush the blood of the deceased rather than preserve the scene for police investigation?
8. Will the military produce, in full, the written statement made in the presence of the DPO in which the soldiers acknowledged that they had killed an innocent person?
9. What disciplinary, investigative, or judicial proceedings, if any, have been initiated against the personnel directly responsible for the death of Abdulsamad Jamiu?
“Abdulsamad Jamiu was 24 years old. He was at home. He was with his sister. His parents were away attending a burial. He was behind a closed door in his own room, in his own house, in a community where no robbery had been reported, where no gunfire had been heard, and where no armed criminals have been identified or produced.
“The family does not seek vengeance. The family seeks justice. These are not the same thing, and the distinction matters. Justice requires truth. Justice requires accountability. Justice requires that the institution responsible for the death of an innocent young man face the full scrutiny of the law, rather than retreat behind a public statement that insults the intelligence of every person who has examined the evidence.
“The family therefore formally demands:
i. An immediate, independent, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of the death of Abdulsamad Jamiu, conducted outside the chain of command of the Nigerian Army and with full civilian oversight.
ii. The identification, suspension pending investigation, and subsequent prosecution, where warranted, of the personnel directly responsible for discharging the weapon that killed Abdulsamad Jamiu.
iii. The retraction of the Nigerian Army’s public statement, which the family has demonstrated to be materially false, and the issuance of a corrected account consistent with the physical evidence and the military’s own prior admissions.
iv. A formal, public apology to the family of Abdulsamad Jamiu.
“The Nigerian Army operates under a constitutional mandate to protect Nigerian citizens. On the night of 25th April 2026, that mandate was catastrophically and fatally violated against a 24-year-old Nigerian man who was doing nothing more than sleeping in his own home.
“The institution’s response — to construct a false narrative of armed pursuit and exchange of gunfire, in direct contradiction of the physical evidence, witness accounts, and its own on-record admissions — compounds the original harm with an act of institutional dishonesty that the family finds both unconscionable and legally untenable.
“The family of Abdulsamad Jamiu will not be silenced. They will not be gaslit. They will pursue every legal, institutional, and civic avenue available to them until the truth of what happened to their son is publicly acknowledged and those responsible are held to full account.
“Abdulsamad Jamiu deserves justice. His family deserves truth. Nigeria deserves better.”
