By Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko
Nigeria appears trapped in a seemingly endless struggle against a hydra-headed monster: the vandalism, theft and destruction of critical infrastructure owned by the government and private individuals. These criminal activities undermine economic development, disrupt essential services, endanger human lives and impose enormous financial costs on a country already grappling with significant economic challenges.
Across the country, organised criminal networks continue to target electricity distribution systems, transmission lines, transformers, railway infrastructure, bridges, drainage systems and other public assets. In the oil and gas sector, the theft of crude oil and the sabotage of pipelines have also contributed to substantial revenue losses.
These are not merely isolated incidents of petty theft. They represent a serious threat to national development, public safety and economic stability.
The organised networks behind infrastructure vandalism
One particularly damaging category of economic crime involves the sophisticated networks responsible for vandalising crude oil pipelines, diverting petroleum products and facilitating the illicit sale of stolen crude oil.
The persistence of these activities raises serious questions about the effectiveness of existing security arrangements. It also fuels concerns about possible collusion between criminal syndicates and individuals within institutions entrusted with protecting the country’s critical infrastructure.
Allegations of complicity involving military or other security personnel must, of course, be established through credible investigations and evidence. Nevertheless, the scale and persistence of oil theft demand a more rigorous examination of how these criminal networks operate, who finances them, how stolen products reach their buyers and whether powerful interests benefit from the trade.
The question is straightforward: how can criminal operations of such magnitude continue for years without significant weaknesses, failures or possible compromises within the systems established to prevent them?
Private security contracts and the protection of oil infrastructure
The federal government’s response to persistent oil theft has included the engagement of private security contractors to protect critical oil and gas infrastructure.
During the administration of former President Muhammadu Buhari, lucrative security contracts were awarded to private operators, including companies associated with individuals in the Niger Delta. The arrangement generated public debate about the effectiveness, transparency and cost of relying on private contractors to protect nationally significant assets.
Supporters of this approach have argued that conventional security arrangements had failed to sufficiently curb oil theft and pipeline vandalism. They maintained that alternative strategies were necessary to achieve better results.
There is some merit in questioning a security strategy that repeatedly fails to deliver measurable improvements. However, the answer cannot simply be to transfer responsibility from public institutions to private contractors without transparent procurement, independent oversight and demonstrable results.
The public deserves to know how much these contracts cost, how their beneficiaries were selected, what performance targets were established and whether the expenditure has significantly reduced oil theft.
Claims that the contracts cost more than the entire annual defence budget should be supported by reliable budgetary and contractual records before being presented as established fact.
Ultimately, Nigeria needs a security framework that combines effective enforcement with transparency, accountability and measurable performance.
Nigeria lost 13.5 million barrels of oil worth $3.3 billion, NEITI reported
The financial consequences of oil theft and pipeline sabotage are substantial.
At the 2025 conference of the Association of Energy Correspondents of Nigeria (NAEC), the then Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (NEITI), Ogbonnaya Orji, reportedly disclosed that Nigeria lost approximately 13.5 million barrels of crude oil, valued at $3.3 billion, to theft and pipeline sabotage between 2023 and 2024.
The conference theme was Nigeria’s Energy Future: Exploring Opportunities and Addressing Risks for Sustainable Growth.
Orji reportedly observed that the lost revenue could have financed the federal health budget for an entire year or expanded energy access for millions of households.
He emphasised that the losses were not merely financial but also reflected institutional weaknesses, diminished public trust and missed opportunities for national development.
The significance of these figures cannot be overstated. Revenue lost through oil theft is revenue unavailable for hospitals, schools, electricity infrastructure, roads, social protection and other essential public services.
It is therefore imperative that the government strengthen the institutions responsible for preventing oil theft, investigating those involved and recovering proceeds derived from criminal activities.
Infrastructure vandalism is economic sabotage
The destruction of public infrastructure must be understood as more than an ordinary property offence.
When criminals remove electricity cables, dismantle railway components, destroy transformers or damage bridges, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate cost of replacing the stolen materials.
Businesses lose operating hours. Households endure prolonged power outages. Transportation networks become less reliable. Public funds that could have financed new infrastructure must instead be spent repairing damaged facilities.
In some circumstances, vandalism can also cause electrocution, railway accidents, structural damage and other potentially fatal incidents.
The same considerations apply to privately owned property. Individuals who invest their life savings in building homes or businesses should not have to live in fear that criminals will destroy those investments to steal iron rods, cables or other materials for resale.
The challenge, therefore, is not merely to apprehend individual offenders. It is to dismantle the networks that finance, facilitate and profit from infrastructure theft.
Scrap-metal dealers who knowingly purchase stolen public assets must also be held accountable where the evidence establishes their involvement. At the same time, legitimate recycling businesses should be distinguished from criminal enterprises.
Existing laws against vandalism in Nigeria
In a media interview, lawyer Mack Ogbamosa reportedly identified infrastructure vandalism as a major challenge facing Nigeria. He argued that existing laws provide mechanisms for prosecuting offenders but that stronger enforcement and more effective deterrence are necessary.
Nigeria has several federal and state laws that may apply to the destruction of public infrastructure, depending on the nature of the offence, the property involved, the location and the applicable statutory provisions.
Among the federal enactments relevant to this discussion are the Miscellaneous Offences Act, the Electricity Act 2023 and the Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act. The Criminal Code and Penal Code also contain provisions concerning property damage and related offences, subject to their territorial application and the specific facts of each case.
The precise charges and penalties must be determined by reference to the current legislation and the facts proved in court.
1. The Miscellaneous Offences Act
The Miscellaneous Offences Act is among the federal laws historically invoked in prosecutions involving serious forms of sabotage and damage to public assets.
The provisions potentially applicable to particular acts of vandalism must be examined carefully. It would be misleading to assume that every incident involving stolen cables, railway components or damaged public property automatically attracts the same penalty.
The prosecution must establish the elements of the relevant offence, and the court must impose a sentence authorised by the applicable law.
For this reason, any claim that a particular subsection mandates 14 years, 21 years or life imprisonment should be checked against the exact statutory text and any relevant amendments before publication.
2. The Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act
Nigeria’s petroleum sector is particularly vulnerable to economic losses arising from the unlawful interference with production and distribution infrastructure.
The Petroleum Production and Distribution (Anti-Sabotage) Act addresses specified forms of sabotage involving petroleum production and distribution.
Its relevance to a particular case depends on the conduct alleged and the statutory elements established by the prosecution. Pipeline vandalism, crude oil theft and the unlawful interruption of petroleum operations may also engage other applicable laws.
Given the importance of petroleum revenue to the national economy, law enforcement agencies should investigate these offences thoroughly, identify the wider criminal networks involved and pursue those who finance or profit from the illegal trade.
3. The Electricity Act 2023
The Electricity Act 2023 provides an important legislative framework for Nigeria’s electricity industry.
The protection of electricity infrastructure requires effective legal and regulatory measures against the unlawful interference with power generation, transmission and distribution systems.
The theft of cables, destruction of transformers and deliberate damage to transmission infrastructure can impose substantial costs on electricity companies and consumers. Such acts can also undermine efforts to improve electricity supply.
The precise offence and available penalty must, however, be identified by reference to the relevant provisions of the Act and any other applicable legislation. Claims that a particular act of vandalism carries life imprisonment should not be published without verifying the specific statutory basis.
4. The Criminal Code and Penal Code
The Criminal Code applies in the relevant southern jurisdictions, while the Penal Code applies in the relevant northern jurisdictions, subject to the applicable federal and state legal frameworks.
These laws contain provisions addressing forms of property damage, malicious injury and related criminal conduct.
The applicable penalty depends on the offence charged, the circumstances of the case and the statutory provision under which the defendant is convicted.
State legislation may also provide additional offences and enforcement mechanisms. Accordingly, the prosecution of an infrastructure vandal should begin with a careful assessment of the relevant law rather than an assumption that all cases fall within a single legal category.
5. State-level laws and enforcement measures
State governments have also adopted laws and enforcement initiatives intended to protect public facilities and prevent the theft of infrastructure.
Lagos State, for instance, has pursued cases involving the alleged removal of bridge components and other public assets. Reports concerning the removal of iron materials from the Festac–Alakija Bridge illustrate the importance of investigating not only those who physically remove public property but also those who knowingly receive or trade in stolen materials.
Such cases should be documented with the relevant charge sheets, court records and judgments. These records would establish whether the suspects were merely arrested, formally charged, convicted or sentenced.
That distinction is important because an arrest is not proof of guilt, and an allegation does not become an established fact merely because it has appeared in the media.
Reported cases of infrastructure vandalism
Reports of arrests, prosecutions and convictions across Nigeria illustrate the breadth of the problem. The following cases have been cited in media accounts and should be checked against official court records before publication.
Third Mainland Bridge railings case (2026)
A report states that Abubakar Jaji was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment without the option of a fine for allegedly damaging and removing iron railings from the Third Mainland Bridge in Lagos.
The report attributes the prosecution to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).
If confirmed by the relevant judgment, the case would demonstrate the seriousness with which the courts may treat the deliberate destruction of essential public infrastructure.
The precise date, court, statutory provision and sentence should be verified against the judgment.
Warri–Itakpe rail corridor case (November 2025)
Media reports have identified Mudasuru Mutari and Blorie Kokori as defendants convicted in connection with the dismantling of railway components near Abraka, Delta State.
The reported sentence was two years’ imprisonment, following prosecution under the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
The case highlights the vulnerability of railway infrastructure and the economic consequences of stealing components required for safe and reliable rail operations.
The final account should confirm the court’s decision, the exact offences and the sentences imposed.
Ebu Bridge drainage case (2025)
Another report concerns Emmanuel Sunday, who was reportedly sentenced by a court in Asaba, Delta State, for damaging the drainage system associated with the Ebu Bridge.
The reported sentence involved imprisonment and community service.
The details of the judgment, including whether the sentence was custodial, concurrent or partly substituted with community service, should be checked before the case is relied upon as an example of judicial sentencing.
Kano railway components case (June 2025)
Four suspects—Mukhtar Muhammed, Abdullahi Musa, Saidu Yusheru and Salisu Shuabu—were reportedly convicted after pleading guilty to offences connected with the theft of railway components in Gabasawa Local Government Area of Kano State.
The case illustrates the need to secure railway installations, identify markets for stolen components and ensure that recovered materials are traced to their legitimate owners.
The names, charges and sentences should be verified through the relevant court records.
Jibowu Bridge vandalism case (November 2024)
A report states that a Lagos Magistrate Court sitting in Oshodi sentenced a person to four months’ imprisonment for attempting to remove structural materials from the Jibowu Bridge.
The individual was reportedly apprehended by the Lagos State Kick Against Indiscipline Brigade.
If confirmed, the case would provide a useful example of intervention by enforcement personnel to prevent the removal of materials from public infrastructure.
Oredo transformer case (2026)
A further report states that Abubakar Dauda was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in Edo State on 18 August 2026 for the destruction or vandalism of a 200 kVA electricity transformer.
The report attributes the conviction to an Oredo Magistrates’ Court.
The court, offence, date and sentence should be confirmed from the official record before publication.
Lagos electricity infrastructure case (2025)
Another reported case concerns Inya Bethel, who was allegedly sentenced by a Lagos magistrate court on 21 July 2025 to 10 months’ imprisonment without the option of a fine for cable theft.
Such cases underline the importance of protecting electrical installations and prosecuting those who steal cables and other materials essential to electricity distribution.
The statutory provision and the court’s final order should be verified before the case is cited as an authoritative example.
Are Nigeria’s laws against vandalism sufficiently effective?
The persistence of infrastructure vandalism raises a fundamental question: are Nigeria’s existing laws adequate, and are they being enforced effectively?
My position is that the country needs a more coordinated and demonstrably effective response.
However, the issue is not necessarily that every existing penalty is too lenient. The real question is whether the combination of legal provisions, investigative capacity, prosecution, judicial sentencing and asset recovery is sufficient to deter offenders.
A severe penalty has limited deterrent value if offenders believe they are unlikely to be arrested, prosecuted or convicted. Conversely, consistent enforcement, prompt trials and the recovery of criminal proceeds can increase the risks associated with infrastructure theft.
Nigeria should therefore strengthen investigations, improve the protection of critical installations, ensure that prosecutors have adequate evidence and hold those who knowingly facilitate the trade in stolen infrastructure accountable.
Any proposed increase in penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, consistent with constitutional protections and supported by reliable evidence concerning the effectiveness of different enforcement strategies.
The destruction of beer bottles and the question of economic sabotage
The debate over economic sabotage extends beyond conventional infrastructure vandalism.
On 17 August 2024, a report discussed a Federal High Court decision concerning the destruction of alcoholic beverages by authorities in Kano State.
According to the report, Justice Emeka Nwite delivered a ruling on 20 May 2023 in a case brought by activist Sesugh Akume against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the EFCC.
The proceedings reportedly concerned the destruction of alcoholic beverages and whether the EFCC had responsibilities in relation to alleged economic sabotage arising from such conduct.
The issue is particularly relevant to Kano, where the Hisbah authorities have conducted operations involving the seizure and destruction of alcoholic beverages. Media accounts reported that millions of bottles had been destroyed during such operations.
The economic argument is that manufactured goods embody the labour, capital, transport, distribution and commercial activity that went into producing and supplying them. Destroying goods that could otherwise be lawfully traded may therefore raise questions about economic waste, property rights and the legal authority under which the destruction occurs.
However, the legal significance of the Federal High Court’s ruling must be stated precisely. A court’s decision about the duties of a particular agency, or the legality of a particular enforcement practice, should not automatically be interpreted as establishing that every destruction of alcoholic beverages constitutes economic sabotage.
The judgment must be examined to determine the precise orders made, the legal reasoning adopted and the extent of the court’s findings.
My broader argument is that government authorities should exercise their powers within the law. Where the destruction of property is authorised, the legal basis and procedure should be clear. Where property is destroyed unlawfully, the responsible parties should be subject to appropriate legal scrutiny.
The protection of public revenue, private property and the rule of law should not depend on whether a particular product or business is politically, culturally or religiously popular.
Borno State: Scrap-metal theft and the loss of electricity infrastructure
The consequences of infrastructure vandalism were also highlighted by Borno State Governor Babagana Umara Zulum, who reportedly raised concerns about the theft of electricity distribution wires worth billions of naira.
According to the report, the state lost wires associated with a power-line project valued at more than ₦3 billion, intended to connect electricity distribution infrastructure from Damaturu to Maiduguri.
The governor reportedly attributed the losses to metal scavenging activities and explained that his administration had imposed restrictions on scrap-metal trading because of concerns about public safety and the theft of public assets.
Zulum also reportedly expressed concern that some scavengers had been killed while collecting metals in communities that were not yet safe for civilian activity. He further raised concerns about allegations that insurgents were using scrap-metal trading channels to dispose of stolen materials.
The governor’s position, as reported, was that the restrictions were intended to protect public infrastructure and security rather than deprive legitimate traders of their livelihoods.
He reportedly allowed genuine operators to remove scrap materials collected before the ban from designated locations, an approach intended to reduce the immediate economic impact of the restrictions.
The situation in Borno illustrates the difficult balance between protecting essential infrastructure and safeguarding legitimate economic activity.
A blanket prohibition may disrupt lawful businesses and affect livelihoods. Yet failing to control the purchase and resale of stolen infrastructure can create a ready market for criminal activity.
A more sustainable approach would involve licensing scrap-metal dealers, requiring records of purchases and suppliers, establishing traceability procedures and prosecuting businesses that knowingly receive stolen public assets.
Where security conditions justify temporary restrictions, the government should communicate the legal basis, scope and duration of those measures and provide clear rules for legitimate operators.
FCT: Police recover infrastructure reportedly worth more than ₦1 billion
The Federal Capital Territory has also experienced significant concerns about the theft and destruction of public infrastructure.
According to media reports, the FCT Police Command announced the arrest of 31 suspects and the recovery of stolen public infrastructure reportedly worth more than ₦1 billion during a crackdown on vandalism.
At the time of the reported operation, the Commissioner of Police was Tunji Disu, who subsequently became Inspector-General of Police.
The reports stated that FCT Minister Nyesom Wike convened a security meeting on 13 January 2025, following which authorities directed the temporary closure of scrap-metal markets, commonly known as Panteka markets, across the territory.
The police and other security agencies subsequently launched an operation known as Operation Sweep, targeting suspected locations involved in the storage and sale of stolen infrastructure.
The reported operation commenced on 16 January 2025 and involved raids on scrap-metal markets in locations including Dei-Dei, Kabusa, Zuba, Mpape, Jabi and Nyanya.
The participating agencies reportedly included the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Army, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, the Department of State Services and other relevant federal and FCT authorities.
What was reportedly recovered?
Items identified in the media reports included:
– Manhole and drainage covers.
– Armoured and insulated electrical cables.
– Industrial solar batteries and panels.
– Components from transformers and generators.
– Fibre-optic cables and copper wires.
– Underground water-board pipes and iron rods.
– Security doors, cement and other building materials.
– Motorcycles and electricity-generating sets.
– Vehicle identification materials and documents whose ownership reportedly required further investigation.
The authorities reportedly arrested 31 suspects, with 16 subsequently charged in connection with alleged offences involving conspiracy, mischief and possession of stolen public property.
The reports also stated that electricity distribution personnel had identified some recovered components as materials stolen from power installations across the FCT. Areas including Dawaki, Mpape, Nyanya and Karu were reportedly affected by prolonged power outages.
The reported operation further prompted measures requiring scrap-market operators to register and undergo profiling.
These developments demonstrate why enforcement against infrastructure theft must extend beyond the individuals caught removing cables or dismantling public facilities. Investigators must also identify the purchasers, transporters, financiers and intermediaries who make the criminal trade commercially attractive.
Nevertheless, arrests, recoveries and charges must be distinguished from convictions. The value attributed to recovered property, the identity of its lawful owners and the final outcomes of the prosecutions should be confirmed through official records.
The need for stronger enforcement and institutional accountability
Nigeria cannot afford to treat infrastructure vandalism as an ordinary nuisance.
The loss of electricity cables can deprive entire communities of power. The destruction of railway components can compromise transport services. The removal of bridge materials can threaten public safety. The theft of crude oil deprives the country of revenue that could otherwise finance development.
These consequences justify a determined response from the government, law enforcement agencies and the judiciary.
However, the response must also address the institutional weaknesses that enable the problem to persist.
First, security agencies should conduct intelligence-led investigations into organised networks rather than concentrating exclusively on low-level offenders.
Second, government procurement and security contracts should be transparent. Where public funds are spent on protecting oil pipelines or electricity infrastructure, the public should be able to assess the results.
Third, scrap-metal dealers should be required to maintain adequate transaction records, verify suppliers and cooperate with lawful investigations. Businesses that knowingly purchase stolen public property should face appropriate sanctions.
Fourth, government agencies and infrastructure operators should improve physical security, inventory controls, monitoring systems and cooperation with local communities.
Fifth, prosecutions should be conducted diligently, with appropriate penalties imposed where guilt is established. Courts should have the evidence necessary to distinguish minor offences from serious, organised acts that cause extensive economic damage or endanger lives.
Finally, law enforcement agencies must investigate allegations of official complicity impartially. No individual should be protected from accountability because of military rank, political influence, commercial connections or public office.
Conclusion: Economic sabotage demands a decisive national response
My examination of reported cases involving the theft and destruction of critical infrastructure reinforces my conviction that Nigeria needs a more effective national strategy against economic sabotage.
It is difficult to justify a system in which the theft or destruction of essential public assets can impose enormous costs on millions of citizens while the individuals responsible may face limited consequences. Yet the appropriate response is not simply to demand the harshest possible punishment in every case. It is to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of the offence and that the law is enforced consistently, transparently and fairly.
Where existing legislation provides inadequate penalties for serious, organised infrastructure sabotage, the National Assembly and relevant state legislatures should consider proportionate reforms. Where the law already provides substantial penalties, the priority should be effective investigation, prosecution and enforcement.
I believe that the most serious cases of economic sabotage—particularly those involving organised criminal networks, deliberate destruction of essential infrastructure, substantial financial losses or conduct that endangers human lives—deserve to be treated with the gravity they warrant. For the gravest offences, lawmakers should consider whether substantially tougher penalties, including life imprisonment where constitutionally and legally justified, are appropriate.
At the same time, Nigeria must confront the market that sustains infrastructure theft. It makes little sense to arrest a person who removes electrical cables or railway components while ignoring the commercial networks that purchase, transport and resell the stolen materials.
Communities also need protection. Across parts of the country, families who have invested their savings in building homes and businesses face the threat of having their property damaged by criminals seeking iron rods, cables and other materials for resale. Such acts destroy not only property but also the security and dignity of the people affected.
In some communities, particularly in the South-East, residents have raised concerns about the theft of building materials and the perceived failure of law enforcement to secure accountability. These complaints deserve impartial investigation, and any allegations of bribery or the improper release of suspects should be substantiated and addressed through the appropriate legal channels.
Nigeria’s critical infrastructure belongs to the public and supports the welfare of millions of citizens. Its protection must therefore be a national priority.
The government should harmonise and strengthen the legal framework where necessary, improve coordination among enforcement agencies, ensure the transparent management of security contracts and vigorously prosecute those whose guilt is established in court.
Above all, the country must end the culture of impunity that allows economic sabotage to remain profitable. Public infrastructure must be protected, legitimate businesses must be allowed to operate, and those who deliberately destroy the assets on which national development depends must be held accountable under the law.
Emmanuel Nnadozie Onwubiko is the founder of the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) and a former National Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria.
