Pat Stevens/
Fresh controversy has erupted over the killing of a 24-year-old National Youth Service Corps member, Abdulsamad Jamiu, in Dei-Dei, Abuja, as his family formally rejected the Nigerian Army’s account of events.
The family demanded an independent investigation, prosecution of those involved, and a public apology.
The development follows a detailed rebuttal issued on behalf of the family on Sunday and a subsequent condolence visit by a Nigerian Army delegation on Monday, led by Brigadier S. O. Buhari, which has further deepened questions surrounding the incident.
Jamiu was killed in the early hours of April 25 at his family residence in Shagari Quarters, Dei-Dei.
In an earlier statement signed by Lieutenant Olawuyi Odunola of the Guards Brigade, the Army said the corps member died after being caught in crossfire when troops responded to a distress call over an armed robbery and came under fire from fleeing suspects.
However, the family has categorically rejected that version, describing it as “false, misleading, and an affront to the memory of an innocent young man”.
According to the rebuttal, soldiers entered the family compound at about 2am, scaled the fence, and proceeded into the house where Jamiu was inside his room with his sister while their parents were away.
The family stated that troops fired through the closed door of his room at close range, killing him instantly.
“The trajectory of the bullet… conclusively establishes that the shot was fired from outside the room, through the closed door,” the statement said, arguing that this contradicts any suggestion of a gun battle.
They further maintained that no armed robbery was reported in the community that night, citing local vigilante sources, and that only a single gunshot was heard, the one that killed Jamiu.
“There was no exchange of gunfire. There were no fleeing robbers. There was no firefight,” the statement said.
The family also raised concerns over what it described as attempts to tamper with the scene, alleging that military personnel instructed vigilante members to clean up bloodstains rather than preserve evidence.
In one of the most serious claims, the family said soldiers at the scene admitted in the presence of police that the killing was a mistake and that Jamiu was innocent, an assertion they said contradicts the Army’s official narrative.
During Monday’s visit, the Army delegation offered condolences and inspected the scene, but reportedly made remarks that have intensified scrutiny of the military’s initial account.
According to the family, members of the delegation stated they were unaware that the house was fenced and that the room where the shooting occurred was located downstairs, details which appear inconsistent with the earlier claim that the victim was hit by a stray bullet during an external exchange of fire.
The delegation assured the family that the incident would be investigated and that any personnel found culpable would be held accountable.
Despite this, the family said trust had been “undermined”, noting that military personnel had visited the scene prior to the release of the Army’s first statement.
They have formally demanded the retraction of that statement and a public apology, insisting that the killing was neither accidental nor a consequence of crossfire.
“This was not an accident. He was in his home… military men entered the premises, approached his room, and shot him through the door,” the family said.
The family is now calling for an independent investigation outside the military chain of command, as well as the identification, suspension, and prosecution of those directly responsible.
They have also petitioned relevant authorities, including the police and human rights bodies, to ensure accountability.
“The family does not seek vengeance. The family seeks justice,” the statement said. “Justice requires truth… and accountability.”
As of the time of filing this report, the Nigerian Army had not issued a fresh public statement addressing the specific contradictions raised by the family following Monday’s visit.
The incident continues to generate public concern, with calls for transparency and adherence to the rule of law in handling the case.
0






