Throughout the interview, Mr Omenka rejected accusations that he brutalised detainees or acted outside the law.
Frank Omenka, a retired colonel who served as the commander of the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) Security Group under the late military ruler, Sani Abacha, has defended his actions, insisting he merely discharged his professional responsibilities and has “nothing to apologise for.”
This was despite decades of allegations of torture and human rights abuses levelled against Mr Omenka, who had remained silent for more than 30 years since the government he served left power.
The retired military officer, who has remained abroad since the end of the Abacha junta, made the remarks on 25 June during his first public interview, in which he was questioned by journalists and former detainees over his role in some of Nigeria’s most controversial military investigations, including the 1995 alleged coup trial.
The interview, held virtually, was organised by Experiential Leadership in Africa (TEL-Africa), in partnership with PREMIUM TIMES. While the session was moderated by TEL-Africa’s Adeolu Adewunmi, the trio of Dapo Olorunyomi, PREMIUM TIMES publisher, Kunle Ajibade, the executive editor of TheNews Magazine and Idris Akinbajo, the managing editor of PREMIUM TIMES, questioned Mr Omenka on his alleged involvement in many atrocities of the Abacha regime.
Little or nothing was known to the public before Mr Omenka emerged as a senior intelligence officer during the Abacha years. During the virtual interview, he briefly explained that he was in school when the junta leadership co-opted him into the system.
Following his ascension to the top seat of the security group, Mr Omenka became widely known, mostly for allegations weighty enough to end his career if genuinely investigated. Interestingly, these allegations, including rape and torture, are the only public footprints of the former military chief.
After the end of the Abacha regime, former political detainees, journalists, students, labour activists and military officers accused of involvement in coup plots appeared before the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission, popularly known as the Oputa Panel, which investigated rights abuses under the late dictator.
Top officials of the Abacha government also appeared to defend themselves. Mr Omenka travelled out of Nigeria before the panel started sitting and did not appear before it. He, however, told his interviewers on Thursday that he did not go into exile to avoid prosecution but only left the country to stay with his children abroad.
At the Oputa panel, many victims described experiences of detention, interrogation and alleged mistreatment while in military custody. Several witnesses specifically mentioned Mr Omenka.
Media executive Nduka Obaigbena has publicly recalled being interrogated by military officers under the Directorate of Military Intelligence after THISDAY published articles critical of the Abacha government.
Olusegun Adeniyi, a former detainee and former editor of Sunday Concord, described being held in DMI custody and explicitly recounted Mr Omenka issuing threats involving sexual violence against a detainee’s wife.
“I will detain you here tonight and organise some boys to go and rape your wife at home,” he quoted Mr Omenka as saying in a column eight years ago.
No major public trial produced a definitive judicial determination of Mr Omenka’s responsibility for the abuses alleged by former detainees.
Throughout the session, Mr Omenka rejected accusations that he brutalised detainees or acted outside the law, maintaining that his responsibility was limited to investigating suspects rather than determining their fate.
“I did my job,” he said. “I didn’t kill anybody. I didn’t touch anybody. I carried out my job professionally.”
Pressed on whether he had any regrets over the role he played during the Abacha era, Mr Omenka insisted there was no basis for an apology.
“There is no room for apology because I have not committed any offence,” he said. “My duty was to investigate.”
The retired officer was accused of contributing to wrongful convictions, emotional torture and the imprisonment of innocent people during the military regime.
Mr Ajibade, the then editor of TheNews, who was sentenced to life imprisonment following the 1995 alleged coup investigations, described Mr Omenka as “a gangster, a sadist and a terrorist,” alleging that he used threats and intimidation during interrogations.
Responding, Mr Omenka acknowledged using harsh language during investigations but argued that it was part of interrogation techniques intended to obtain information rather than evidence of personal malice.
“It had nothing to do with me as a human being,” he said. “It had everything to do with me as a professional. All we wanted was to get to the truth.”
He also said his investigation team was not responsible for sentencing suspects, drawing a distinction between investigators and the military tribunals that later tried accused persons.
“My panel was not a tribunal,” he said. “It was an investigating team.”
During the discussion, moderators and participants repeatedly asked whether, more than three decades later, he had reflected on the pain suffered by victims and their families or felt any remorse over the consequences of the investigations.
But Mr Omenka maintained that he neither physically assaulted detainees nor exceeded his mandate.
“You say people were taken to prison. My duty was to take them there. I didn’t judge them. I didn’t sentence them,” he said.
The interview marked one of Mr Omenka’s most extensive public engagements on his role during the Abacha years, a period widely criticised by human rights organisations for widespread detention without trial, alleged torture and suppression of political dissent.
His comments are likely to reignite debate over accountability for abuses committed during Nigeria’s years of military rule, particularly as several victims continue to insist they suffered grave injustices during investigations in which Mr Omenka played a prominent role.
The interview ended without any indication that the retired officer intended to retract or apologise for his actions, insisting instead that history had misunderstood his role and that he simply carried out the duties assigned to him.
