Former Managing Director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation, Engineer Seyi Sijuwade, has condemned the practice of internal investigations into rail accidents, warning that such approaches compromise transparency, enable cover-ups, and endanger public safety.
Speaking at the NSIB Multimodal Transportation Stakeholders Workshop in Abuja, themed ‘Strengthening Transport Safety Standards Through Collaboration’, Sijuwade highlighted serious lapses in the current method of probing incidents within Nigeria’s rail sector.
He stressed the need for a stronger, independent role for the Nigerian Safety Investigation Bureau in all transport-related accident investigations.
Sijuwade described the self-regulating structure as flawed, pointing to repeated conflicts of interest where staff involved in operations are tasked with investigating incidents they may have contributed to.
“We have seen cases where train drivers remain loyal to their line managers. When faults occur due to poor maintenance, the reports often protect those in charge. Investigations led by operational staff cannot guarantee truth or objectivity,” he said.
He noted that this approach leads to skewed reporting, suppressed findings, and disappearing evidence, all driven by a culture of fear and institutional self-protection.
“Those operating the trains should never be the ones probing accidents involving the same trains. Critical evidence disappears. And not by coincidence. It’s driven by fear of punishment and the instinct to shield colleagues,” Sijuwade stated.
Advocating for a clear separation between operations and investigations, Sijuwade insisted that the NSIB must take the lead in all incident reviews, warning that current practices erode institutional credibility and compromise safety reforms.
“When a crash happens, the first point of contact should be the NSIB. Not the police. Not security agents. Because the Bureau’s objective isn’t to assign blame; it’s to uncover causes and prevent recurrence.”
Referencing international best practices, he pointed to the United Kingdom’s rail safety model as a benchmark for reform. There, investigation, regulation, and operations are handled by separate entities.
“In the UK, you have the Office of Rail and Road for regulation and the Railway Accident Investigation Branch for probes. Neither operates trains. Here, the NRC does all three. That must change,” he added.
Sijuwade further recommended the creation of an enforcement agency to support NSIB’s work by ensuring that safety recommendations are not only published but also enforced.
“NSIB cannot enforce its findings. Yet we expect the same institutions that caused the accident to correct themselves. It’s a dead end. We need a regulatory body that accredits, monitors, and enforces compliance.”
On public engagement, he noted that both passengers and frontline workers often hesitate to report safety concerns due to fear of retaliation. He called for protected, anonymous reporting mechanisms and legal safeguards for whistleblowers.
He also urged the NSIB to establish formal agreements with emergency agencies such as the police, DSS, and fire service to ensure coordinated responses during accidents across transportation modes.
“This engagement must not end with a workshop,” Sijuwade said. “We need ongoing collaboration, full publication of findings, and open communication with the public. That’s how we build a credible safety system.”
