Advertisement

Can Nigeria’s multimodal investigators handle road, rail, air, and sea disasters under one roof? With legal gaps, turf wars, and emotional tolls, the NSIB faces a steep climb. ANTHONY OMOH writes on the hurdles, hopes, and hard truths.

Since its statutory transition from the Accident Investigation Bureau (AIB) in 2022, the Nigerian Safety Investigation Bureau (NSIB) has embarked on a deliberate journey to fix Nigeria’s transport safety and establish itself as Nigeria’s premier multimodal transport accident investigator. With its expanded mandate now covering aviation, rail, road, inland waterways, maritime, and pipelines, the bureau is working assiduously to entrench a culture of safety, transparency, and accountability across all modes of transport.

Under the leadership of Director General, Captain Alex Badeh Jr., NSIB has moved beyond its aviation roots to initiate comprehensive frameworks that standardize how accidents in other critical sectors are investigated.

In pursuit of this goal, the bureau has introduced three major draft regulations. These regulations cover rail, maritime, and aviation. Each aims to establish a structured accident investigation framework for its mode, focusing on evidence-based assessments and actionable recommendations.

“This draft aims to enhance rail safety nationwide by ensuring every mishap is investigated with the depth and urgency it deserves,” Badeh emphasized.

The Maritime Safety Investigation Regulations Draft, similarly, targets Nigeria’s inland waterways and maritime corridors, aiming to boost transparency and rebuild trust in waterborne transport. Meanwhile, the revised Civil Aviation Investigation Regulations further modernize air safety standards to reflect global best practices.

“By reviewing and modernising this aviation framework, we are improving our readiness and responsiveness in the air transport sector,” Badeh noted.

But while these draft frameworks mark clear progress, the Director General was forthright in acknowledging that a policy document no matter how well written is only as strong as the system that enforces it. This is why NSIB has actively sought Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with key partners ranging from the military to emergency response agencies.

MOUs with the Nigerian Air Force, the National Emergency Management Agency (NEMA), and other federal bodies are meant to define roles during accident responses, promote mutual support, and eliminate jurisdictional clashes. However, stakeholders at the Abuja workshop highlighted a key caveat: MOUs are not legally binding.

NSIB Must Dig Deeper Than MOUs

“We cannot build a sustainable safety regime on the back of MOUs alone,” said retired Vice Admiral Dele Ezeoba, one of the forum’s prominent speakers. “For NSIB to function optimally, it must be institutionally entrenched with enforceable powers and not rely on goodwill or informal agreements.”

Admiral Ezeoba, a respected voice on maritime operations and governance, stressed the need for legislative strengthening of NSIB’s remit across all transport sectors. He noted that while collaboration is indispensable, it must be backed by governance mechanisms that eliminate duplication, foster accountability, and integrate intelligence and data-sharing across agencies.

“Fragmented governance, overlapping mandates, and insufficient funding have historically undermined Nigeria’s transport safety efforts,” he declared. “We need a unified approach driven by a single, empowered investigative authority.”

He underscored that every mode: road, rail, sea, and air, has its peculiar safety challenges, but all must be unified under a single investigative standard. To this end, Admiral Ezeoba presented a detailed analysis of integration costs, cultural resistance, data incompatibility, and weak accountability, challenges that NSIB must overcome.

“But if we collaborate,” he said, “the benefits, shared capacity, broader intelligence, and robust enforcement are immense. The alternative is fragmented failure.”

Rail Sector: A Litmus Test

One of the workshop’s most compelling interventions came from Engineer Seyi Sijuwade, former Managing Director of the Nigerian Railway Corporation (NRC), who delivered an unsparing critique of Nigeria’s rail accident investigation practices.

“When we insist on investigating our accidents internally, there’s a risk of bias and ineffective recommendations,” Sijuwade warned. “We have had cases where the train driver is loyal to the operations director. Or where the same people responsible for an accident are tasked with investigating it.”

Such practices, he said, lead to conflict of interest, delayed investigations, destroyed evidence, and ultimately eroded public trust.

“You cannot be the judge and the jury,” he declared. “NSIB offers a neutral, independent platform, exactly what the rail sector needs.”

Sijuwade further called attention to operational inefficiencies within NRC, which wears multiple hats as infrastructure manager, operator, and quasi-regulator.

“That model is outdated,” he said. “We need an independent safety regulator, separate from the operator, and empowered to enforce NSIB recommendations.”

He also advocated for public participation and technology-driven transparency.

“The public is often the first to witness rail safety violations, broken level crossings, track vandalism, etc. We need to encourage whistleblowing and simplify how people report incidents. Safety starts with citizen engagement.”

Importantly, he urged for the establishment of a real-time, searchable accident database, one that allows stakeholders to examine past events, identify trends, and learn from historical failures.

“At the click of a button, we should be able to see what accident occurred, where, and what actions followed. That’s how you build a culture of accountability.”

Multimodal Complexity: Integration vs. Resistance

Despite these advancements, institutional resistance remains a major hurdle. For example, Air Commodore Onitiju, another panelist, ignited debate by challenging the placement of NSIB under the Ministry of Aviation and Aerospace Development.

“You cannot expect NSIB to truly be multimodal when it’s still tied to a single ministry,” Onitiju argued. “Its allegiance must be to transport safety as a whole, not to aviation alone.”

He proposed relocating the bureau directly under the Office of the President to ensure independence, neutrality, and enhanced national perception.

“The mere optics of being aviation-led dilutes NSIB’s credibility in rail, road, and maritime. If we are serious about multimodal integration, then this structural change is overdue.”

Many agreed that for NSIB to enforce or even drive sectoral change, its independence must not only be de facto but de jure—enshrined in law and recognized across all government arms.

Who Implements NSIB’s Recommendations?

Another recurring concern was the implementation gap. As powerful and thorough as NSIB’s investigative reports may be, their impact is blunted when recommendations are not enforced.

“NSIB doesn’t have the mandate to enforce. So, who does?” Sijuwade asked. “Often, the recommendations go back to the same agency responsible for the accident in the first place.”

This, he said, creates a loop of inefficacy. To resolve this, he called for an independent enforcement mechanism, possibly a joint safety oversight task force,to monitor compliance and apply penalties for non-implementation.

“Without follow-through, the best investigative system becomes academic,” he said. “Lives are lost because lessons are not enforced.”

Public Trust and Psychological Trauma

Perhaps the most humanizing moment came from Dennis Jones, former Managing Director of the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), who flew in to share international best practices.

“At the NTSB, we deploy psychologists to accident scenes because investigators often experience emotional trauma,” Jones revealed. “I’ve seen too many bright-eyed professionals quit after their first crash investigation.”

According to Jones, the emotional toll of witnessing human carnage, twisted metal, bodies, grief-stricken families, can be overwhelming, especially for first-time investigators.

“Some suffer from PTSD. Others carry the trauma for life. That’s why we have mental health protocols that allow investigators to step back, speak with a psychologist, and be supported.”

He stressed that if Nigeria is to build a professional, enduring investigative system, it must institutionalize mental health care for its investigators.

“It’s not enough to have the best tools or frameworks. If your people are not supported emotionally, you will lose them—and your system will bleed out expertise.”

Jones concluded with a poignant admonition:

“Safety starts with compassion, for the victims, the families, and the investigators. Never forget that.”

Conclusion: From Workshop to Action

The NSIB Multimodal Transportation Stakeholders Workshop was more than a meeting; it was a wake-up call. It laid bare the structural, institutional, emotional, and operational challenges of integrating multimodal accident investigation in Nigeria.

But it also showed promise. The draft regulations, stakeholder buy-in, and honest debate reflect a new spirit of collaboration. For NSIB to fulfill its full potential, however, it must transcend MOU diplomacy, earn legislative muscle, relocate to a truly neutral platform, and invest deeply in people both technically and emotionally.

Only then can it fix Nigeria’s transport safety and emerge the safety cornerstone of Nigeria’s vast, complex transport system.

Advertisement