“My Brother Died While I Was Locked Up” — Usor Fisherman Alleges Torture, 32-Day Oporoza Detention Over Tantita Operation
By Passman Akpos
DELTA STATE — A fisherman from Usor Community in Delta State, Omamuminogho Molagbemi, also known as Gbade Aderojor, has alleged that his life changed dramatically after he was arrested from his home in the early hours of December 2, 2024, allegedly beaten by men he later understood to be Tantita security personnel and transported through several locations before ending up in Oporoza.
Molagbemi claims he was locked inside a detention cell there for approximately one month and two days. He alleged that his ordeal began at about 3:00 a.m. when he heard unusual noise outside his residence and discovered that a group of men he did not know had surrounded his house.
According to his account, he attempted to escape but was apprehended and allegedly beaten before the men identified themselves as Tantita security personnel. He claimed that he was taken to a concrete jetty where he was allegedly beaten with a cutlass and pieces of hard wood and repeatedly whipped across his back, head and stomach.
Molagbemi said a female community leader intervened and insisted that he and another person arrested with him were innocent and had no involvement in oil theft, pipeline vandalism or illegal bunkering. He alleged that the intervention did not immediately stop the operation.
From Usor To DD Flow Station, Satagbene And Oporoza
Molagbemi alleged that after the initial assault, he was taken to the DD Flow Station, where soldiers guarding the facility reportedly advised that the matter should be properly investigated before any disciplinary action was taken.
watch video here 👇
He said he and the other detainee were subsequently moved to Satagbene and later transported to Oporoza. His account raises questions about the chain of custody and authority involved in moving a civilian suspect across different locations.
The account also raises questions about whether formal records were created at each stage of the alleged movement and which agency or organisation had custody of him.
Those matters can only be properly clarified through official records and responses from the relevant security and oil-surveillance authorities.
“They Just Threw Me Inside The Cell”
According to Molagbemi, upon arrival in Oporoza, he was allegedly taken directly into a cell and was not given a meaningful opportunity to explain his circumstances.
He alleged that the following day, a man he identified as “Gen. Super” came to take his statement.
Molagbemi said he maintained that he was innocent and explained that he was a fisherman who depended on fishing for his livelihood and used the proceeds to support his family.
He further alleged that his mobile phone was taken from him and switched off, cutting off communication between him and his relatives.
The alleged loss of communication, according to his account, later became particularly painful because Molagbemi said he did not know that his elder brother had died while he was being detained.
He claimed that he only discovered the death after his release on January 4, 2025, saying: “I did not know that my senior brother had died until I came back on the 4th of January 2025.”
“About 32 People Were In The Cell”
Molagbemi further alleged that approximately 32 people were held in the cell where he was detained.
He claimed that some detainees had allegedly spent months there, while others had reportedly remained for considerably longer periods, some over two years.
He also alleged that detainees were fed only twice a day and that the portions were inadequate for the number of people inside the cell.
According to his account, detainees were eventually informed that a general release was being organised.
Molagbemi alleged that about 15 people were released during one exercise while others were returned to the cell.
He said he remained in detention until January 4, 2025, when he was eventually released following intervention by people within the community.
His account raises questions about whether any official register existed for the alleged detainees, the offences for which they were being held, their dates of arrest and the dates on which they were released.
Four Usor Men Allegedly Identified
Molagbemi also alleged that four people originally from Usor Community participated in the assault.
He identified two of them by the names “Commandor” and “Kahinde” and said he could not immediately recall the names of the other two but identified their father as Omalukun.
He alleged that the men had previously lived in Usor before becoming involved in Tantita-related operations.
These claims have not been independently established by Tarakirivoice, and the individuals named in Molagbemi’s account have not been proven to have committed the alleged acts.
They should therefore be given an opportunity to respond to the allegations, while any competent investigation should independently determine what happened and who, if anyone, was responsible for the alleged assault.
Why Was A Civilian Taken To Oporoza?
At the heart of Molagbemi’s account is a broader question about the authority under which civilians suspected of involvement in oil-related crimes are arrested, transported and detained.
Nigeria’s law-enforcement framework provides established institutions and procedures for arrest, investigation and detention, while private security and surveillance contractors operate within specific mandates.
Tantita Security Services has been involved in Federal Government efforts to protect oil and gas infrastructure and combat crude-oil theft.
However, allegations that civilians were physically assaulted or held in unofficial detention facilities require independent verification and clarification.
The key questions are therefore not only whether Molagbemi was suspected of an offence, but who authorised his arrest, who had custody of him, where he was officially booked, whether he was handed over to a legally empowered law-enforcement agency and under what authority he remained detained for more than a month.
Existing Controversy Over Alleged Oporoza Detention Facilities
Molagbemi’s account comes amid a wider public controversy surrounding allegations of unlawful detention facilities and alleged abuses connected with oil-security operations around Oporoza.
Reports have previously documented allegations by Niger Delta activist Apostle Ezekiel Daniel Perela Osia concerning alleged detention facilities and abuses linked to Tantita operations.
Tantita representatives, community figures and security officials have disputed or questioned aspects of those allegations.
Reporting from Oporoza has also raised conflicting accounts regarding whether any detention facility beyond the local police station existed there.
These conflicting accounts make independent verification particularly important because the existence, ownership, operation and legal status of any alleged detention facility cannot responsibly be established solely from the testimony of one individual or accusations made by either side.
Twelve Questions Authorities Should Answer
Molagbemi’s account raises a series of questions that relevant authorities should address if a transparent investigation is to take place.
1. Who authorised his arrest from his home at approximately 3:00 a.m. on December 2, 2024?
2. Were the men who arrested him operating under a written security mandate?
3. Under what legal authority was he allegedly transported from Usor to Satagbene and subsequently Oporoza?
4. Was he formally arrested and booked for a criminal offence?
5. Was he ever charged before a court during the period of his alleged detention?
6. Which agency or organisation had legal custody of him?
7. Who operated the cell where he alleges approximately 32 people were held?
8. Were the identities, reasons for detention and dates of release of the detainees officially recorded?
9. Was Molagbemi medically examined after the alleged beating?
10. Did security personnel at DD Flow Station receive or document his case?
11. Did Tantita maintain any operational record relating to his alleged arrest and detention?
12. What happened to the other people whom he claims were detained alongside him?
“My Brother Died While I Was Locked Up”
Perhaps the most disturbing element of Molagbemi’s account is his allegation that his elder brother died while he remained inside the alleged detention facility.
He said he only learned about the death after his release, claiming that the seizure and switching off of his phone prevented him from communicating with his family
If his account is supported by independent evidence, the allegation would raise serious questions about the circumstances under which a detainee was allegedly prevented from communicating with his family.
It would also raise questions about whether any mechanism existed for notifying him about a death in his immediate family.
However, that aspect of the account requires verification through family testimony, death records, communication records and other available evidence rather than being treated as an established fact solely on the basis of his statement.
Tantita And Security Authorities Have A Right To Respond
The allegations made by Molagbemi are serious, but they remain allegations pending independent investigation and responses from the parties involved
Tantita Security Services, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Army, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps, the Delta State Government and other relevant authorities should be given an opportunity to provide their respective accounts of the incident.
Of particular importance is whether any official record exists showing that Molagbemi was arrested, investigated, transferred or detained.
Authorities should also clarify whether any criminal allegation was formally made against him, whether he was ever handed over to the police or another law-enforcement agency and whether any report was made concerning the alleged assault or his physical condition following his release.
A Wider Accountability Question For The Niger Delta
The case goes beyond the personal experience of one fisherman because it touches on the difficult balance between the Federal Government’s efforts to protect oil infrastructure and the rights of civilians living in oil-producing communities.
Oil theft, pipeline vandalism and illegal bunkering remain major security and economic concerns, and authorities have a responsibility to investigate suspected criminal activity.
At the same time, allegations of arbitrary arrest, physical assault, prolonged detention or detention outside established legal procedures cannot simply be dismissed without investigation.
The credibility of oil-security operations depends not only on preventing illegal activities but also on ensuring that civilians are treated according to the law and that credible allegations of abuse are properly investigated.
The Evidence Must Now Speak
Molagbemi’s story presents a question that should ultimately be answered by evidence rather than speculation: was he lawfully arrested and detained as part of a legitimate investigation, or was he subjected to unlawful violence and detention outside established procedures?
The answer should be established through arrest records, security logs, detention registers, witness statements, medical evidence, communication records, official correspondence and the accounts of the agencies and individuals involved.
Tarakirivoice could not independently verify every element of Molagbemi’s account from the information currently available and therefore does not present his allegations as established facts.
However, allegations involving prolonged detention, alleged torture, loss of communication with family and the death of a close relative during the period of detention are sufficiently serious to warrant transparent scrutiny.
Tarakirivoice calls on Tantita Security Services, the Nigeria Police Force, the Nigerian Army, the NSCDC, the Delta State Government and other relevant authorities to clarify what happened to Omamuminogho Molagbemi from the alleged arrest at his home in Usor on December 2, 2024, through his alleged movement to Oporoza, to his reported release on January 4, 2025.
The public deserves to know who arrested him, who detained him, why he was detained, where he was held, whether he was charged with any offence and what happened to the other detainees mentioned in his account.
Until the competing accounts are independently tested and the available evidence examined, the allegations remain allegations — but they raise questions that deserve clear answers.
