The Commander of the Mining Marshals, Assistant Commandant of Corps (ACC) John Onoja Attah, has denied that personnel of the specialised Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC) unit participated in the September 16, 2026, operation at M.I. Wushishi Housing Estate in Minna, Niger State, which is now the subject of an inquiry into deaths associated with the incident.

Attah also disputed a claim attributed to the suspended Niger State NSCDC Commandant, Suberu Siyaka Aniviye, that Mining Marshals were deployed to the location following his visit to a mining site a day before the operation.

In a statement issued by his office at the NSCDC National Headquarters in Abuja, Attah described the reported claim as inaccurate, maintaining that the Mining Marshals operate under a command structure that does not permit state commandants to deploy their personnel.

The denial follows an October 16, 2026, report by Daily Post in which Aniviye was quoted as saying that he visited the mining site on September 15 before deploying Mining Marshals to the area.

The circumstances surrounding the September 16 operation are being examined by the Justice Mohammed Mohammed Commission of Inquiry.

Attah said the Mining Marshals were not attached to the Niger State Command of the NSCDC and that no state commandant had the authority to assign personnel of the specialised unit to an operation.

“No Mining Marshals operative is attached to the Niger State Command or to any State Command of the Corps for that matter,” he stated.

According to him, the unit operates from the NSCDC National Headquarters under the command and operational directives of the Commandant-General, in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Solid Minerals Development.

He argued that the reported deployment account was inconsistent with the unit’s established operational arrangements.

Attah also maintained that the NSCDC Commandant-General had previously stated publicly that Mining Marshals were not involved in the incident.

He said he became aware of the operation only after reports of the deaths emerged.

“Our operational records confirm that at no time were Mining Marshals personnel deployed or involved in the said operation,” the commander said.

The statement did not include copies of the operational records cited by Attah.

His denial raises questions about the identity of the personnel deployed, the authorisation under which they acted and the chain of command responsible for the operation.

Those issues remain matters for the commission of inquiry to establish through evidence.

The September 16 incident has attracted scrutiny over the conduct of security personnel and the circumstances surrounding the deaths associated with the operation.

The Justice Mohammed Mohammed Commission of Inquiry is examining the incident.

Attah’s intervention comes amid conflicting accounts concerning the deployment of security personnel to the location.

While the suspended commandant was reported to have identified Mining Marshals as the operatives deployed, the unit’s commander has rejected that account.

Attah urged that conclusions about the unit’s involvement should be based on verifiable deployment records and other evidence rather than disputed accounts.

The commander also defended the conduct of Mining Marshals in enforcing laws governing Nigeria’s solid minerals sector.

He said the unit’s operations were guided by the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act, 2007, and established rules of engagement.

According to Attah, the Mining Marshals have maintained professional standards since their establishment and have not recorded human rights violations during their operations.

He further claimed that no fundamental rights enforcement suit was pending against the unit in any Nigerian court.

Attah attributed what he described as the unit’s operational discipline to procedures instituted under the leadership of the NSCDC Commandant-General, Prof. Ahmed Abubakar Audi, and the Minister of Solid Minerals Development, Dele Alake.

He maintained that the Mining Marshals would continue carrying out their responsibilities in the solid minerals sector despite the controversy surrounding the Niger State operation.

The unit’s enforcement activities are intended to support government efforts to address illegal mining and related activities within the industry.

However, the present dispute concerns whether its personnel were involved in a specific operation, rather than the broader objectives of mining enforcement.

Attah appealed to media organisations to verify claims about Mining Marshals operations through the unit’s National Headquarters.

He said inaccurate attribution of security operations could misrepresent the responsibilities of different NSCDC formations, particularly where allegations of deaths and misconduct were involved.

His statement sought to separate the specialised unit from the September 16 incident while leaving the determination of responsibility to the ongoing inquiry.

The reported account attributed to Aniviye and Attah’s denial present differing explanations of the operation’s command arrangements.

Resolving those differences may require examination of deployment instructions, operational logs, personnel records and testimony from officials and witnesses.

It will also be necessary to establish whether any personnel involved were acting under the authority of the Niger State Command or another formation of the NSCDC.

Attah insisted that the Mining Marshals’ own records showed no deployment to the location.

As the commission continues its work, the central questions remain who authorised the September 16 operation, which security personnel participated and what circumstances led to the deaths under investigation.

The Mining Marshals have denied involvement, but the commission’s findings will be needed to establish the facts and determine any responsibility arising from the incident.