Publication

On May 10, 2026, people went to Tumfa market in Zamfara State to buy food, sell goods, bargain, and make a living. No one left home that day planning to become a casualty of a security operation. Yet, many are now reported dead.

 

The official and public accounts now sit far apart. According to Reuters, Amnesty International says at least 100 civilians were killed. The military confirmed an air operation in the area but denied evidence of civilian casualties. But while institutions argue over figures, families are left with the same urgent question: what really happened at Tumfa market?

 

That question deserves an answer.

 

Nigeria is facing real insecurity. Armed groups have attacked communities, abducted residents, displaced families, and destroyed livelihoods. The military has a difficult and necessary responsibility to protect citizens, but protection cannot become another source of fear.

 

The Constitution provides the starting point. Section 14(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution states that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government. That duty includes confronting armed groups, but it also includes protecting civilians from avoidable harm during security operations. The state cannot claim to protect citizens while treating civilian deaths as an unfortunate detail.

 

Section 33 protects the right to life. This means that no person’s life should be taken arbitrarily, including in the course of military action. Where civilians are alleged to have been killed by state action, the government has a duty to investigate, explain, and account for what happened. Section 34 also protects human dignity. For affected families, dignity includes truth, recognition, and respectful treatment.

 

There is also the broader issue of civilian protection during military operations. Even when the state is fighting armed groups, it must take reasonable steps to distinguish civilians from combatants, verify targets, avoid unnecessary civilian harm, and ensure that the force used is not excessive in relation to the military objective. In plain terms, a security operation must be planned and carried out with human life at the center.

 

That is the breach this incident raises. It is not only the reported loss of life. It is the question of whether enough care, intelligence, coordination, and precaution were used before lethal force was deployed in a civilian space.

 

The armed forces have a duty to protect citizens, not expose them to avoidable death.

 

A country cannot defeat lawlessness by allowing state power to operate without scrutiny. The uniform does not remove the Constitution. A security operation does not suspend the right to life. Civilians cannot be treated as collateral damage simply because the state is fighting insecurity.

 

This matters beyond Zamfara because Nigeria has seen repeated reports of civilian deaths from military airstrikes in recent years. Each incident follows a familiar pattern: casualties are disputed, investigations are promised, public attention moves on, and affected families are left without clear answers.

 

That pattern must stop.

 

If the intelligence was wrong, the system must be corrected. If rules of engagement were breached, those responsible must face consequences. If civilians were killed, their families deserve recognition, compensation, and justice.

 

Accountability is not a favor to victims. It is part of the government's duty. A government that claims to protect citizens must be willing to answer when citizens are harmed in its name. Fighting insecurity is necessary, but it must never become a blank check for avoidable civilian deaths.

 

A market is not a battlefield with civilians as targets.  Until Nigeria can fight insecurity without civilian casualties, the promise of protection remains incomplete.