-
Says No Robbery Incident Occurred in Estate
- Safiu Kehinde
The family of Abdulsalam Jamiu, the National Youth Service Corp (NYSC) member who was allegedly shot dead during a crossfire between soldiers and armed robbery suspects at Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters in Abuja has countered the Nigerian Army’s account of the incident.
NPO earlier Reported that the Guard Brigade of the Nigerian Army had on Sunday released a statement over the tragic Saturday incident involving the soldiers attached to brigade’s Quick Response Group.
The army’s account of the incident claimed the late Jamiu was caught in a crossfire between the soldiers and the fleeing armed robbery suspects who were alleged to have attacked the estate.
The corp member reportedly died of his injuries after been rushed to the hospital.
This claim would however be dismissed by the family of the deceased corp member in a statement giving a comprehensive account of what happened.
As against the army’ robbery incident claim, the family disclosed that there was no robbery incident in the estate.
They alleged that the soldiers had raided the house around 2am on Saturday, scaling through the fence and fired a single gunshot at Jamiu’s room.
The bullet was reported to have pierced through the door and hit the late corp member in the head, killing him instantly.
“At approximately 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, 25th April 2026, personnel of the Nigerian Military entered the residential premises of the Jamiu family at Dei-Dei Shagari Quarters, Abuja.
“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.
“Nigerian Military 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.
“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.” The statement partly read.
The family further disclosed that Jamiu’s sister who was in the house as at the time of the incident had rushed downstairs upon hearing the gunshot.
She was instructed by the soldiers present to go outside and “calm down.”
Neighbours who heard the gunshot reportedly contacted the community vigilante group who, upon their arrival, were instructed by the military personnel to mop up the blood and flush it.
Thus, according to the family, raises grave questions about the military’s intent to preserve an evidence-intact crime scene.
The body of Abdulsamad was subsequently conveyed to Kubwa General Hospital by the police, who had arrived at the scene.
The family disclosed being compelled to endure hours of statements and administrative paperwork before being granted access to retrieve their son’s remains for burial.
Meanwhile, they disclosed that the military personnel present at the scene, when confronted by the family regarding the killing of their son, acknowledged that the shooting of corp member was a mistake and that they had killed an innocent person.
This acknowledgement was reportedly made in the presence of the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) and was recorded in a written statement.
The family further highlighted what they considered as contradictions between the army’s claim of robbery incident.
They reject the account that the 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.
In a point-by-point rebuttal, the family dismissed the army’s claim of a robbery attack while also providing evidence suggesting that the house was raided by the soldiers and the gunshot was unprovoked.
“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.” The statement read.
The family further claimed that the soldiers entered into the residence covertly and not in pursuit of armed robbers as 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?” The statement read further.
They further affirmed that no robbery incident was reported in the community as confirmed by the vigilante group.
“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 military 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.” The family wrote.
They also held that every witness in the community — neighbours, vigilante members, and residents — is consistent on one critical point that the only gunshot heard that night was the shot fired inside the Jamiu family residence which killed the 24-year-old corp member.
“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 statement read further.
While questioning the motive behind the raid, the family of the deceased corp member demanded justice.
They called for an immediate, independent, and transparent investigation into the circumstances of the death of Abdulsamad Jamiu.
The probe, the family demanded, must be conducted outside the chain of command of the Nigerian Military and with full civilian oversight.
They also demanded the identification, suspension pending investigation, and subsequent prosecution, where warranted, of the military personnel directly responsible for discharging the weapon that killed Abdulsamad Jamiu.
In the same vein, the family demanded the retraction of the Nigerian Military’s public statement, which they claimed to be materially false, and the issuance of a corrected account consistent with the physical evidence and the military’s own prior admissions.
Jamiu’s family finally demanded a formal, public apology to them.
