Kaduna/Abuja train attack: Victims should sue the Federal Government

The definition of democracy that seems to resonate with the masses is the one that defines democracy as the “Government of the people, of the people and for the people”.  Based on the social contract theory the members of a community/society (the governed) surrendered all their rights and privileges to a central body, called the government or political rulers, and in return, the government promises to protect them and provide for their welfare. This symbiotic relationship can be seen in the codification of natural rights in the form of fundamental rights under Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In this wise, the rights to life, personal liberty, fair hearing, property, dignity of human person, family, religion and freedom of expression and movement are some of the guaranteed inalienable rights of Nigerians. Government under the social contract theory is duty bound to ensure that all these rights are guaranteed and protected.

On the 28th of March, 2022 an Abuja bound train coming from Kaduna was bombed and attacked by terrorists in the night. The train was alleged to be carrying more than 600 passengers. These are Nigerians. The Nigerian Railway Corporation is yet to give Nigerians a credible record of the number of passengers that boarded the train that day.  Many passengers were shot and killed by the terrorists who took over the train. Many others were also kidnapped by the terrorists. A week after, we still don’t have a credible record of the number of passengers that actually boarded the train, the number that were killed by the terrorists, the number that were injured and the number that were kidnapped by the terrorists and who have not been rescued. As usual with the low premium that government places on the lives of Nigerians, the NRC has no insurance coverage for passengers that use its trains. There is unconfirmed report that many of the passengers that boarded the ill-fated train also had no form of identification but were allowed access. How else can one define incompetence, carelessness and disorderliness?

As usual, the victims of the train bombing have been left by the Federal Government to lament their losses. We would move on as if nothing happens until the next happens, then we start again, the charade of issuing press releases and scramble to visit accident scenes and pose for pictures. No conscious effort made to assist the victims during these trying times. The Nigerian Railway Corporation did not provide any insurance coverage for passengers that board its trains.

Unconfirmed information indicates that there was enough intelligence of the planning of the attack few days before it occurred. The HonorableMinister of Transport, Rotimi Ameachi did also confirm that the attack could have been prevented if the necessary security equipment he had advised earlier had been purchased. Reports also indicate that memo submitted for theacquisition of said security equipment by the said Honorable Minister had the hallmarks oflack of transparency and due processes. There are indications that since the rejection of the memo, the Honorable Minster did not bother to do anything further, against the advice of the national Executive Council to seek for a more competent company to undertake the task. Is this how lives have become so cheap in Nigeria because of the sheer incompetenceand recklessness of our political leaders?

A duty of care is the responsibility that a person or business has when doing business with or otherwise interacting with, other people and businesses. Under tort law, duty of care is defined as the responsibility of a person or business to act as a reasonable person would act in a similar situation. A person who violates his duty of care by acting in a negligent or reckless matter is then liable for any harm that another person suffers as a result of his behavior.

The passengers that boarded the train entered into a valid contract with the NRC to convey them safely to their destinations and at the scheduled time. It is incumbent on the NRC to fulfill its own part of the bargain after being paid for the service. It owed the passengers a duty of care.  This it failed to perform. Many lives lost, many injured and many kidnapped as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the Nigerian Railway Corporation and the Federal Government of Nigeria. They breached the duty of care they owed to the passengers.

Lord Macmillan in Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) AC 562 case made it clear that the categories of the duty of care are not exhaustive. He said as follows (at p. 619): “What, then, are the circumstances which give rise to this duty to take care? In the daily contacts of social and business life human beings are thrown into, or place themselves in an infinite variety of relations with their fellows; and the law can refer only to the standards of the reasonable man in order to determine whether any particular relation gives rise to a duty to take care as between those who stand in that relation to each other. …The categories of negligence are never closed.”