The killings of Igbo Jah and Enugu socialite Stone should awaken our conscience and strengthen the call for safer policing, responsible gun handling and an end to the unnecessary use of live ammunition against civilians.
By Sebastine Okafor, Ph.D
There is a question every Nigerian must begin to ask: how many more innocent people must die before we agree that live ammunition should never be treated as an ordinary tool for controlling civilian crises, breaking up arguments or attending social events?
How many mothers must lose their sons? How many fathers must bury children they struggled to raise? How many families must spend their savings looking for justice for loved ones who left home to celebrate a birthday, attend a burial, enjoy music or participate in a peaceful gathering, only to return in a coffin?
The recent killing of Enugu socialite Izuchukwu Nnaji, popularly known as Stone, has brought this painful question back to the centre of public discussion. On October 21, 2026, Stone reportedly celebrated his birthday with friends and later lodged at The Bull Hotel in Enugu. According to reports, operatives of the Anti-Cult Tactical Squad arrested him in the early hours of the following day. His body was subsequently discovered at the mortuary of the Enugu State University Teaching Hospital, Parklane.
His family and associates alleged that he was unlawfully killed. The Enugu State Police Command subsequently confirmed that its operatives had shot him during an operation and ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. The police must be allowed to establish the facts, and anyone found culpable must face the law. However, the incident has once again raised serious questions about the use of firearms by security personnel during operations involving civilians.
Stone’s death is particularly painful because it comes about two years after the killing of popular Ogene musician Okezie Chikezie Mba, popularly known as Igbo Jah. On October 25, 2024, Igbo Jah was fatally shot by a police inspector at the Anti-Cultism Tactical Squad headquarters in Enugu after reportedly paying a friendly visit. The police identified the officer as Inspector Ozonwanji Joseph, who was arrested and subsequently dismissed and arraigned over the killing.
Igbo Jah was a musician whose work connected him with people through the rich cultural expression of the Igbo people. He was not merely a name in a newspaper. He was somebody’s son, a friend, a colleague and a person with plans for the future. His death left a painful gap in the lives of those who loved him and among admirers of his music.
Now, the reported circumstances surrounding Stone’s death have brought back the same fear and anger. People are asking whether a visit, an arrest or a security operation should end with a young man’s body in a mortuary.
These cases are not identical, and it would be wrong to declare every shooting an accidental discharge or to prejudge the investigation into Stone’s death. But they raise a common and urgent question: are our security agencies doing enough to ensure that the use of firearms does not become an avoidable threat to the people they are paid to protect?
Nigeria needs to have a serious national conversation about when and how security personnel should carry and use firearms around civilians.
There are situations in which armed officers must defend themselves or members of the public against an immediate threat to life. Nobody expects a police officer to stand helplessly before an armed attacker. Security personnel have a duty to protect themselves and the public.
However, the existence of danger in some situations does not justify treating every argument, crowd, disturbance or act of resistance as a reason to pull a trigger.
The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials require officers to use non-violent means wherever possible and to exercise restraint when force becomes necessary. They also require the protection of human life and the minimisation of injury. The UN guidance on policing assemblies makes it clear that firearms must not be used simply to disperse a gathering.
This is an important distinction. A person who refuses an instruction, a crowd protesting a grievance, two guests arguing at a party and an armed criminal threatening to kill people are not the same. Each situation requires a response based on the actual threat.
Where there is no immediate threat of death or serious injury, shooting a civilian cannot be justified merely because an officer is angry, impatient or struggling to control a situation.
We must therefore demand clear operational rules that make the protection of human life the starting point of every police action.
To start this, one practical step is to equip and train properly selected officers to manage public disturbances with appropriate less-lethal equipment.
Rubber or plastic impact projectiles are often discussed as alternatives to live ammunition. Other options include shields, protective equipment, trained arrest teams, communication officers, barriers, verbal negotiation and other approved less-lethal tools appropriate to the situation.
However, Nigerians must understand that rubber bullets are not harmless. They can cause blindness, permanent disability, serious internal injuries and death, particularly when fired at close range or at vulnerable parts of the body. The fact that a projectile is described as less-lethal does not mean that it can be used carelessly.
The United Nations’ 2020 guidance on less-lethal weapons warns against indiscriminate use and sets strict conditions for their use during assemblies. Rubber-coated bullets should not be treated as a licence to shoot at crowds or punish people who disobey instructions.
Our demand should therefore go beyond simply replacing one type of bullet with another. It should be for a system that gives officers more options to control dangerous situations without unnecessarily taking lives.
Where a peaceful crowd needs to be managed, trained personnel should prioritise communication, separation of conflicting groups, safe evacuation and targeted lawful arrests. Where an individual poses a serious threat, officers should use the minimum force necessary to address that threat. Live ammunition should be reserved for circumstances in which its use is strictly necessary to protect life against an imminent threat of death or serious injury, subject to applicable law.
The objective is not to weaken the police. It is to make policing safer, more professional and more effective.
Another practical solution is the establishment or strengthening of a properly trained public-order and civilian-crisis response unit in every state.
Such a unit should not simply be another armed squad carrying rifles. It should be made up of officers specially trained in negotiation, crowd management, conflict de-escalation, lawful arrests, first aid, evidence gathering and the use of approved less-lethal equipment.
The unit should have clear rules on when firearms may be carried, when they may be deployed and who may authorise their use. Its members should be trained to identify the difference between a peaceful gathering, a heated disagreement, a violent disturbance and an immediate threat to life.
For example, when two groups begin fighting at a burial ceremony, the first response should be to separate them, protect bystanders and arrest those committing offences where lawful and safe. An argument over music at a birthday party should not automatically become a gun-related emergency. A protest should not be treated as a battlefield simply because the crowd is angry.
The United Kingdom offers a useful institutional example. Its policing system uses specially trained public-order officers, public-order commanders, police liaison teams and evidence gatherers. These officers have defined roles in planning operations, communicating with crowds, assessing threats and documenting police actions. The UK’s framework also treats firearms as a last resort, to be considered where there is a serious threat to public or responder safety.
Nigeria can adapt relevant elements of this model to its own security realities. It does not need to copy another country in every detail. What matters is that officers attending civilian disturbances receive the right training, equipment, supervision and clear operational instructions.
The Federal Government, state governments and police authorities should work together to develop a national framework for such units, with measurable standards and independent oversight.
However, one question that keeps on coming up to many reasonable Nigerians is; why should a police officer attend a social event with a loaded firearm and no clear safety plan? This is why We must also examine the presence of armed security personnel at social events.
In Nigeria, it is common to see uniformed officers, private security personnel and vigilantes at burials, weddings, birthday parties, traditional ceremonies and political gatherings. Their presence may be necessary where credible threats exist. But the presence of a firearm must come with responsibility.
A firearm is not a decoration. It is not an accessory to a uniform. It is not a symbol of importance to be displayed at a party. It is a deadly instrument that requires discipline, secure handling and constant attention.
Organisers who request armed protection should know who is in charge, what duties the officers have and what safety rules apply. Security personnel should not be allowed to turn a celebration into an opportunity for intimidation or careless gun handling.
Where an event requires armed protection, the deployment should be properly authorised, supervised and risk-assessed. Officers should not discharge weapons into the air to entertain guests, announce their presence or settle disagreements. Celebratory gunfire can kill people far away from the person who pulls the trigger.
Every event organiser must understand that hiring security personnel does not remove the responsibility to protect guests from foreseeable dangers.
Again, Nigerians must stop giving alcohol and narcotics to gun-wielding men. This is another side of this problem that Nigerians do not discuss enough which is the role of the public in encouraging dangerous behaviour by armed men.
At some social gatherings, guests offer drinks to policemen, soldiers, vigilantes and other armed security personnel as a sign of respect or appreciation. Some officers accept the drinks while still carrying their weapons and performing security duties. In other cases, people may encourage them to drink more, dance, fire shots into the air or demonstrate their power.
A person carrying a firearm should not be encouraged to drink alcohol while on duty. Alcohol can impair judgment, coordination and the ability to assess danger. A person who becomes intoxicated may react carelessly to an argument, mistake an ordinary movement for a threat or handle a weapon without the discipline required.
The danger becomes even greater when alcohol is combined with illicit drugs or other intoxicating substances. Any security operative who is impaired while carrying a firearm poses a risk to himself, his colleagues and the public.
Nigerians must stop treating the provision of alcohol to armed personnel as a harmless gesture. Respect does not mean encouraging an officer to compromise his judgment. Appreciation does not mean placing other people’s lives at risk.
If a host wants to appreciate the security team protecting a wedding or burial, the appropriate thing is to provide food, water, soft drinks and other lawful refreshments. Alcohol should not be served to personnel while they are on active duty, and security commanders should enforce a clear prohibition on drinking or using intoxicating substances while armed and working.
The same principle should apply to vigilante groups and private security personnel. They may not always be regular police officers, but a gun can kill regardless of the uniform worn by the person holding it.
Event organisers should also refuse requests to provide illicit drugs or other intoxicating substances to armed personnel. Anyone who knowingly encourages a security operative to become intoxicated while carrying a weapon contributes to a dangerous situation.
We must stop praising armed men for showing off their weapons at social events. We must stop encouraging celebratory gunfire. We must stop confusing recklessness with courage. Meanwhile, a responsible security operative should be respected for protecting lives, not for frightening people with a gun.
Moving further, another reason these deaths continue to provoke public anger is the fear that investigations may not produce justice. When a civilian is shot by a security operative, the public deserves a prompt, transparent and credible investigation. The victim’s family should not have to organise protests, plead with officials or use social media campaigns before receiving basic information about what happened.
Every shooting should be documented. The firearm involved should be secured for forensic examination. Witnesses should be interviewed, relevant CCTV footage preserved and available ballistic evidence examined. Where applicable, the officer’s body-camera footage, duty records and operational orders should be reviewed.
The investigating authority must establish whether the shooting was lawful, whether the officer followed operational procedures and whether negligence, recklessness or deliberate wrongdoing occurred.
Where the evidence establishes a criminal offence, the officer should face prosecution in accordance with the law. Where disciplinary breaches are established, appropriate sanctions should follow. Where the shooting was lawful and necessary, the evidence should also make that clear.
Accountability must not depend on whether the victim is a celebrity, a poor trader, a student, a political supporter or an ordinary citizen whose name may never appear in the news.
The lives of Igbo Jah and Stone matter. So do the lives of every unnamed Nigerian who has died or suffered injury after being struck by a bullet fired by a security operative. Justice for one person should help prevent the death of another.
Having taking into accounts the dangers of these acts and incidents, there are also things that Nigerians and governments should do. For us to move forward, it requires action from security agencies, government, event organisers and members of the public.
First, the Inspector-General of Police and the leadership of other security agencies should review firearm policies for operations involving civilians. Officers should receive clear instructions that firearms must not be used to disperse peaceful gatherings or settle ordinary disputes.
Second, state governments and security authorities should establish or strengthen specialised public-order and civilian-crisis units, with officers trained in negotiation, de-escalation, first aid, lawful arrest and the safe use of less-lethal equipment.
Third, security agencies should introduce enforceable rules prohibiting alcohol and intoxicating substances for personnel while on armed duty. Event organisers should be informed of these rules and should not provide alcohol or drugs to officers assigned to protect their events.
Fourth, governments should provide appropriate equipment and continuous training. It is not enough to tell officers to exercise restraint while leaving them without suitable protective gear, communication equipment, medical support or effective alternatives to firearms.
Fifth, every security agency should maintain a public record of firearm-related incidents, including deaths, injuries, investigations and disciplinary outcomes, while respecting lawful privacy requirements. Regular reporting would help government and the public identify patterns and assess whether reforms are working.
Sixth, civil society organisations, the media, traditional rulers, religious leaders, entertainers and youth organisations should work together to educate Nigerians about responsible firearm handling and the dangers of celebratory gunfire.
Finally, citizens should report reckless firearm use and demand investigations through lawful channels. Public anger is understandable when someone dies, but protests and advocacy should be directed towards truth, justice and reform rather than violence against other people.
The goal is not to make security personnel enemies of the public. It is to create a relationship in which citizens can trust that the people carrying guns to protect them will exercise the highest level of discipline and restraint.
We must always know that a life lost to a bullet cannot be restored. Imagine a mother preparing food for her son, expecting him to return from a birthday celebration. Imagine the phone call that never comes, followed by the journey to a hospital or mortuary. Imagine a father looking at photographs and wondering why a child who left home alive could not return alive. This is the human cost of careless firearm use. Behind every name is a family. Behind every death is a future that has been interrupted. Behind every unanswered question is a family that may spend years searching for justice.
Igbo Jah’s death should not become just another old news story. Stone’s death must not be reduced to a few days of protest and public debate. Their cases should strengthen the demand for safer policing, credible investigations and a system that places human life above unnecessary displays of force.
We must also be honest with ourselves. Security agencies have responsibilities, but citizens have responsibilities too. We cannot continue giving alcohol to armed men, encouraging them to fire into the air and celebrating dangerous behaviour, only to condemn the consequences when somebody dies. We must change both the conduct of those who carry guns and the attitude of those who encourage their recklessness.
Nigeria needs security officers who are brave enough to protect the public, disciplined enough to control their weapons and professional enough to resolve civilian crises without unnecessary bloodshed. It also needs citizens who understand that respect for security personnel does not require compromising safety.
The demand is simple: protect the people, use force only when necessary, make safer alternatives available, investigate every shooting and punish proven wrongdoing.
The time is now for us to raise our voices before another family is thrown into mourning.
For all of us, we need to answer this question; how many more Nigerians must die before we agree that the gun should be the last resort, not the first response?
Leave a Reply