The Nation Newspaper

Category: Law

Katsina CJ: why communities struck deals with bandits
Chief Judge of Katsina State, Justice Musa Abubakar Danladi, in this interview with state correspondent AUGUSTINE OKEZIE, addresses growing public concern over prolonged detentions, alleged negotiations for the release of detained bandits, banditry-related cases, victims’ interests and the limits of judicial authority.
- ‘Agreements must include disarmament, compliance with law’
- ‘No bandit has been released’
What is your reaction to allegations that the state government has been negotiating with bandits?

That is not true. The state government has made it clear repeatedly that it will not negotiate with bandits, and it has remained resolute on that position ever since. It is desperate communities that separately entered into negotiations with bandits without authorisation from the state government. The bandits, in return, demanded the release of their detained colleagues, thereby forcing the communities to seek the support of the state government to secure the release of the detained bandits. The government refused to oblige them and instead sought judicial advice.

What is the situation now?

We recommended the setting up of a victim-offender mediation committee, which has now been established. Discussions are ongoing, but such processes must remain lawful and must take victims’ interests into account. As I said earlier, some communities entered into agreements with bandits out of desperation.

What is your position on negotiations?

Communities are exhausted by insecurity, but any agreement must include disarmament and must comply with the law. Presently, the state government is working to correct illegal arrangements, including unlawful agreements and negotiations with bandits.

What is your take on exercise of clemency?

There are constitutional provisions relating to mercy, but such powers must not be exercised casually or merely out of sympathy. Justice must be guided by principle and legality. We also insist that due process, evidence and victims’ rights remain the pillars of justice. While insecurity has created complex challenges, abandoning the rule of law would create even greater injustice.

How is the trial of the arrested bandits going?

Judges are guided strictly by law. Sympathy cannot replace proof. The moment courts begin to act outside of evidence, innocent people could suffer. Justice must be lawful, not emotional. Our concern is legality. During the height of banditry, many suspects were arrested. Some have been convicted and sentenced. Some are still on trial. Others are awaiting trial because investigations are incomplete. The public must understand that convicted persons cannot simply be released without due process. Each category has its own legal position. As I am speaking with you now, no bandit has been released. Rather, they are all undergoing legal processes. So the noise about their release is unwarranted.

Read Also: Police arrest seven suspected bandits, recover firearms in Kaduna

There is growing public concern about the number of people awaiting trial in Katsina. Why the situation?

What we are facing is a genuine legal dilemma. Many individuals have been arrested and brought before the courts, but their cases cannot proceed to full trial because investigations have not been completed. The court does not investigate crimes; that responsibility lies with law enforcement and prosecuting authorities. For a court to try any person, there must be evidence, witnesses and proper legal advice. In several of these cases, key witnesses have been displaced due to insecurity or are unwilling to come forward out of fear. Without witnesses and evidence, the court cannot move forward. So suspects remain in custody not because the court wants delay, but because the legal process is incomplete.

Some accuse the government of bringing cases to court but failing to pursue them diligently. Does that contribute to delays?

Yes, that is part of the challenge. A suspect may be brought before a magistrate or high court, and sometimes bail is granted under strict conditions, including not interfering with investigations. However, if the prosecution delays in filing charges or presenting evidence, the trial cannot begin. Justice requires preparedness. The court cannot manufacture evidence or compel a prosecution that is not ready. So delays on the investigative or prosecutorial side inevitably slow down the administration of justice.

Does this situation also apply to criminal cases involving victims and accused persons?

No, that is a misunderstanding. In criminal law, it is always the State versus the suspect. Once a complaint is made, the state takes over the matter in the public interest. The victim then becomes a witness. The victim’s role is to give testimony about what happened. It is not the victim’s duty to secure a conviction. The responsibility to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt lies entirely with the state, and the duty to determine guilt lies with the court.

Do victims’ legal rights to compensation?

Yes, they do have rights to compensation. The law empowers courts, in certain circumstances, to order compensation. But victims must come forward, testify and make their claims known. In some cases, they may also pursue separate civil actions against agencies if their rights were violated. Victims cannot benefit if they do not participate.

What role can the media play?

Many people simply do not know their rights. Someone who has been in detention for an unreasonable period can apply for bail or demand that their matter be heard. But ignorance prevents them from taking these steps. The media has a powerful role in enlightening the public so that citizens can seek lawful remedies instead of losing hope.

There have been claims that relatives of suspects were arrested. Is that acceptable?

Criminal liability is personal. Arresting wives, children or relatives without evidence of involvement raises serious legal and human rights concerns. The law does not punish association without proof of participation.

How are victims’ interests being protected?

Victims must be identified and consulted before any case is discontinued. The government cannot forgive offenders on behalf of victims. Their consent matters.

Some detainees have been in custody since 2022. How is this being handled?

That is why the Administration of Criminal Justice Committee is active. It includes the Police, Ministry of Justice, DSS, Correctional Services, the Bar and civil society. Its mandate is to review cases, ensure speedy trials and prevent unlawful detention. There are three categories of legal situations presently pending in Katsina courts: convicted persons, persons standing trial, and awaiting-trial inmates. Only the last group has not yet had full trials. None of them has been convicted.

What is your position on extrajudicial killings?

They are unlawful. Security agencies are empowered to enforce the law, not to act as judge and executioner. The rule of law must prevail in a civil society.
February 3, 2026
Bamidele demands retraction, apology over alleged defamation

Senate Majority Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, has demanded an immediate retraction and unreserved apology over allegations of defamation levelled against him in a pre-action notice seeking N5 billion in damages.

He warned that failure to comply would attract civil and criminal proceedings.

Bamidele, through his lawyer, Prof. Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), rejected in strong terms the claims contained in a letter written by another Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Victor Opara, who acted on behalf of the Managing Director of Magodo Property Development Company Limited, Mr. Lai Omotola.

In the response letter, Bamidele’s counsel described the allegations against the senator as false, reckless and defamatory per se.

He insisted that the Senate Majority Leader neither instigated nor influenced the arrest of any person, nor deployed his office to interfere in any civil dispute or court process.

“Our client totally, unequivocally and emphatically denies each and every allegation, insinuation, imputation, conclusion and narrative contained in your letter,” the letter stated.

According to Pinheiro, Bamidele did not publish, utter, authorise, ratify or procure the publication of any defamatory words against Omotola, as alleged.

He further denied any involvement in the property disputes referenced in the pre-action notice, stressing that the senator has no proprietary, beneficial or possessory interest in the property forming the subject of the litigation.

The letter faulted attempts to link Bamidele to alleged police misconduct, disobedience of court orders or interference in civil disputes, describing such claims as baseless, speculative and legally unsustainable.

Bamidele’s legal team also took issue with the N5 billion compensatory damages demanded in the pre-action notice, describing it as extortionate and an abuse of pre-action process under Nigerian law.

Read Also: Bamidele: hands-on learning, problem-solving skills vital

“Our client reasonably construes the monetary demand as an attempt to intimidate, harass and coerce him into an unjustified settlement. The demand smacks of bad faith and malice,” the letter added.

The Senate Majority Leader demanded that Omotola and his legal representatives cease and desist from further harassment or publication of allegations capable of injuring his personal integrity, professional standing, political reputation and public office.

He also demanded a written retraction of the alleged defamatory imputations within seven days of receipt of the letter, alongside an unreserved written apology.

The letter warned that failure to comply would leave Bamidele with no option but to set the law in motion and pursue available remedies for criminal defamation, malicious falsehood and abuse of legal process, while reserving all constitutional, statutory and common law rights.

Background

The exchange of legal letters followed a pre-action notice sent by Victor Opara (SAN) to Bamidele, alleging that the senator made defamatory statements against Omotola during a telephone conversation with a member of the House of Representatives, Mr. James Faleke.

Opara claimed that Bamidele described Omotola as a “land grabber” and a “fraudulent person” during a call on January 12, 2026, which was allegedly placed on speakerphone at Faleke’s residence in Lagos and heard by several persons.

The lawyer argued that the alleged remarks imputed criminal conduct to Omotola, exposed him to public ridicule and hatred, and were actionable per se under Nigerian law, particularly the Lagos State Properties Protection Law.

The pre-action notice also traced the dispute to a prime property located at No. 24 Adeola Odeku Street, Victoria Island, Lagos.

Opara maintained that the land belongs to the Federal Government and was lawfully leased to Magodo Property Development Company for 99 years after payment of N1.152 billion.

He alleged that a rival claimant, Kaplan Properties Limited, laid claim to the land based on a title purportedly derived from the Lagos State Government, which he argued lacked the authority to allocate the property.

Opara further alleged that Kaplan Properties, with the “active support” of Senator Bamidele, used the police to dispossess Magodo Property Development Company of the property, despite the matter being a civil dispute and notwithstanding subsisting court orders directing the police to vacate the property.

He demanded a written apology within 14 days and payment of N5 billion in damages within 21 days, warning that failure to comply could result in litigation with even higher claims.

However, Faleke has since distanced himself from the allegations.

His counsel, Mr. Gboyega Oyewole (SAN), said the lawmaker denied that any such slanderous statements were made during the alleged phone conversation.

“Our client has informed us that nothing of such as contained in the said letter occurred,” Oyewole said, describing the response as being for record purposes.

February 3, 2026
How judges can avoid delays, by CJN

The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, has urged judges to master case management techniques as a way of speeding up the administration of justice.

She said prompt justice delivery could also be achieved if judges familiarise themselves thoroughly with relevant laws.

Justice Kekere-Ekun spoke yesterday in Abuja at the opening session of a refresher course for judges of the superior courts on “The Management of Evidence in Trial,” organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI).

She said the modern judge must go beyond being a passive arbiter.

“While impartiality remains paramount, judges are expected to exercise informed and active control over proceedings to ensure fairness, efficiency and procedural discipline,” she said.

The CJN stressed that this responsibility requires firm mastery of the Evidence Act to enable judges deliver clear and confident rulings on admissibility from the Bench where appropriate.

She warned that undue or routine adjournments to rule on evidentiary issues should be discouraged, noting that they contribute to delays and undermine the momentum of trial proceedings.

“Active case management therefore, entails controlling the presentation of evidence, ruling promptly on objections, curbing dilatory tactics, and safeguarding the integrity of the trial process,” she said.

According to her, these functions demand not only technical competence but also sound judicial judgment exercised with decisiveness and restraint.

Justice Kekere-Ekun also emphasised the central role of evidence in the trial process, urging judges to develop effective evidence management skills.

She noted that evidence remains the foundation upon which judicial decisions are built, as it is through evidence that facts are established, credibility assessed and the law applied.

“While substantive and procedural rules provide the legal framework for adjudication, it is the manner in which evidence is received, managed, evaluated and applied that ultimately determines the fairness and quality of judicial outcomes,” she said.

Read Also: FG, states, councils share ₦1.969tr December revenue at FAAC meeting

The CJN added that for judges of the superior courts, whose decisions often shape jurisprudence and public confidence, a firm grasp of evidentiary principles is indispensable.

She observed that the evidentiary environment in Nigerian courts has expanded significantly, with judges now confronted with electronic records, digital communications, forensic materials and expert testimony from specialised fields.

According to her, while these developments enhance the truth-finding role of the courts, they also present new challenges relating to admissibility, authenticity, reliability and probative value.

Justice Kekere-Ekun said judicial officers must therefore be adequately equipped to navigate these complexities with confidence and consistency.

She noted that the Evidence Act, 2011, as amended by the Evidence (Amendment) Act, 2023, continues to provide the statutory framework for evidentiary practice in Nigeria.

Judges, she said, must apply its provisions in line with constitutional guarantees, particularly the right to a fair hearing.

She added that the exercise of judicial discretion in evidentiary matters must be informed, principled and firmly grounded in law and precedent, stressing that effective evidence management is closely linked to judicial case management.

Commending the NJI for organising the course, the CJN said it came at a time when judicial work has become increasingly complex.

She observed that judges of the superior courts are now routinely called upon to determine disputes involving extensive records, complex facts and multiple layers of evidence.

“In this context, the effective management of evidence is no longer merely procedural; it is central to the delivery of justice itself,” she said.

Administrator of the NJI, Justice Babatunde Adejumo (retd.), said the course was designed to allow judges revisit foundational principles of Evidence Law while engaging with contemporary developments affecting trial practice.

He noted that the administration of justice has recently faced new evidentiary challenges requiring renewed judicial attention.

According to him, the course aims to strengthen judges’ capacity to address these challenges with confidence and consistency.

“It also aims to build upon the experience of your lordships to interrogate recurring challenges encountered in trial management, and to explore best practices that enhance efficiency without compromising the right to fair hearing guaranteed under the Constitution,” he said.

Justice Adejumo assured participants of the NJI’s unwavering commitment to judicial training, noting that continuous learning remains essential to judicial excellence.

February 3, 2026
‘Why Supreme Court nullified N1.4b award against Mobil’

The Supreme Court nullified a N1.4 billion compensation suit filed against Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited over the alleged acquisition of community land in Akwa Ibom State for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal challenged the jurisdictional decision of the Court of Appeal, Calabar.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on January 30, the apex court held that the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain claims relating to land disputes and compensation arising from compulsory acquisition and unexhausted improvements.

It ruled that such matters fall squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of State High Courts under the Land Use Act.

The appeal stemmed from a suit instituted in 1997 by His Royal Highness, Obong David Edu, and 132 others at the Federal High Court, Uyo Judicial Division.

The claimants sued Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited, now Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Unlimited, the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC), and the Government of Akwa Ibom State.

They sought compensation on behalf of themselves and the Ekid people of Eket and Esit Eket Local Government Areas for community land allegedly compulsorily acquired by the state government.

They claimed N379,988,000, with interest from July 30, 1997, as compensation for the alleged acquisition, as well as for purported unexhausted improvements on the land.

Read Also: Police urge NLC to shelve Tuesday’s planned protest

In March 2014, the Federal High Court ruled in favour of the claimants, awarding the full sum of N379,988,000 with interest at 10 per cent per annum from April 8, 1998, until liquidation of the judgment debt.

Mobil challenged the decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar Division.

In a unanimous judgment delivered on July 13, 2018, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the Federal High Court’s judgment, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on land-related compensation claims.

Dissatisfied, the claimants further appealed to the Supreme Court.

The apex court upheld the submissions of Mobil’s counsel, Ituah Imhanze Esq of Kenna Partners, and dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

The court reaffirmed settled jurisprudence that claims for compensation arising from compulsory acquisition of land and unexhausted improvements are matters reserved for State High Courts, not the Federal High Court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling effectively restores the judgment of the Court of Appeal and nullifies the N379.9 million award earlier granted by the Federal High Court.

Dr. Okiemute Akpomudge of Albert Akpomudge, SAN & Co represented the NNPC, while J. Jerome Akpan Esq appeared for the Government of Akwa Ibom State.

The appellants were represented by Ekom Nwoko Esq of Kanu G. Agabi and Associates.

With the decision, the Supreme Court has brought to an end a protracted dispute that spanned nearly three decades and traversed three tiers of court.

It also reinforced the constitutional and statutory limits of court jurisdiction in land and compensation matters.

February 3, 2026
CDHR seeks review Cybercrimes Act, warns of threat to free speech

The Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR) has called on the National Assembly to urgently review Nigeria’s cybercrimes law.

It warned that key provisions of the legislation undermine constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and are being used to stifle dissent.

The call was made at the organisation’s 2025 Annual General Conference (AGC) in Ota, Ogun State, with human rights activists, lawyers and civil society leaders faulting what they described as the increasing criminalisation of speech on social media.

Lead speaker at the conference and former Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academics), University of Lagos, Mr. Olasupo Ojo, said the cybercrimes law, as currently applied, amounts to a “technical gag” on citizens and contradicts democratic principles.

“How can a law prohibit people from expressing themselves on social media? That is a clear abuse of fundamental rights,” Ojo said.

He expressed hope that the courts would eventually pronounce on controversial sections of the legislation.

He argued that existing laws already provide remedies for defamation, which he stressed is a civil matter, not a criminal offence.

Read Also: FG, states, councils share ₦1.969tr December revenue at FAAC meeting

“With the cybercrimes law, defamation has been criminalised. That is unacceptable. Any provision of the law or regulation that violates freedom of expression has to go,” he said.

Ojo also warned against the rise of what he termed “cyber-rats” – state-sponsored actors allegedly deployed to intimidate critics and suppress dissent online.

He urged the CDHR to return to grassroots mobilisation through intensive civic education in markets, motor parks and tertiary institutions.

“The people must not sleep and must not allow governments to rest,” he charged.

President of the organisation, Mr. Debo Adeniran, used the occasion to call for far-reaching constitutional reforms to make social and economic rights enforceable, lamenting that Nigeria’s democratic system continues to exclude the majority of citizens from justice and effective governance.

Adeniran criticised the inability of Nigerians to seek legal redress over the failure of the government to provide basic services such as healthcare, food security, education and infrastructure, despite paying taxes.

He described the non-justiciability of social rights as a “fundamental injustice” embedded in the country’s legal framework, arguing that it has stripped citizens of enforceable rights to food, healthcare and education, services he described as essential to human dignity and meaningful participation in governance.

“Human rights are not luxuries reserved for the powerful. They are everyday necessities, as vital as food and shelter,” Adeniran said.

The conference, held under the theme “Human Rights as Our Everyday Essentials: Fundamental, Inviolable, Indiscriminate,” attracted delegates from 27 state branches of the organisation and featured deliberations on internal reforms, elections and the future direction of the human rights movement in Nigeria.

During the National Council session, branch elections in Lagos and Delta states were ratified, while the council also dissolved the existing Board of Trustees and elected a new five-member board comprising Mr. Olasupo Ojo, Mr. Debo Adeniran, Prof. Lucky Akarueze, Mr. Gbenga Awosode and Mr. Femi Falana, SAN.

A new National Executive Committee was also elected to steer the affairs of the organisation for the next two years.

Those elected include Adeniran as National President; Godwin Anyebe (Vice President); Deji Adebowale (General Secretary); Imrana Yahaya (Assistant Secretary); Akinrinade Wahab (Treasurer); Naabulobari Naazigha-Lue (Legal Adviser); Onyibe Jeremiah (Publicity Secretary); and Musa Gwani Turare (Internal Auditor).

In a communiqué issued at the end of the conference and jointly signed by Adeniran, Adebowale and Jeremiah, the CDHR reaffirmed its commitment to defending fundamental rights and strengthening internal cohesion, while calling for renewed grassroots engagement and collaboration with the legal community and security agencies.

The conference also acknowledged the contributions of the Chairperson of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ota Branch, Mrs. Ajose, and the Divisional Police Officer of Ota Division, CSP Idehai Godwin, both of whom emphasised the importance of upholding the rule of law and fostering cooperation between civil society and law enforcement.

Adeniran urged the newly elected executives to remain accountable to members and communities, stressing that leadership within the CDHR must be rooted in service, discipline and unwavering commitment to social justice.

“Let the struggle continue,” he said.

February 3, 2026
Protests: Falana visits injured victims of alleged police attack

Activist-lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), yesterday condemned the use of teargas by the police on protesters during last week’s demonstration against alleged illegal demolitions and forced evictions in the Makoko waterfront area of Lagos.

He described the police action as unconstitutional, dangerous and a violation of citizens’ fundamental rights.

He spoke with journalists during a visit to the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH), where some of the injured protesters are receiving medical treatment.

Briefing Falana on the condition of one of the victims, a burns and plastic nurse, Mr. Adedeji Hassan, said Mrs. Kafayat Muftaudeen, who sustained a severe leg injury, was being discharged but would continue treatment through regular wound dressing and weekly hospital visits ahead of surgery.

He explained that she was fit to return home and would visit the hospital weekly for dressing until the wound healed, after which she would undergo skin grafting.

“When the wound is fully healed, she will come back for skin grafting. We will take skin from another part of her body to cover the defect,” Hassan said.

Hassan added that Mrs. Muftaudeen was being discharged with her medications and would be monitored by a medical colleague living near her residence.

“Some people recover better at home, in an environment they are used to,” he said.

He also disclosed that another protester, Mr. Ajayi, who sustained injuries during the protest, had been discharged. Ajayi was the individual whose injuries were shown in footage aired by CNN.

Read Also: Police urge NLC to shelve Tuesday’s planned protest

Falana argued that the Nigerian Constitution clearly guarantees freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, stressing that the police had no legal justification for attacking the protesters.

“My position is that the Constitution of Nigeria has guaranteed freedom of expression and freedom of assembly,” he said.

He recalled the decision of the Court of Appeal in All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) v. Inspector-General of Police, which affirmed the right of Nigerians to protest peacefully and directed the National Assembly to enact laws to protect that right.

According to him, those protections were reinforced by the Police Establishment Act.

Falana said: “The Police Establishment Act provides that those who want to protest are only required to notify the police.

“Once the police command is notified, adequate security must be provided.”

He said the organisers of the Makoko protest complied with the law by notifying the police in advance and were escorted peacefully from the Ikeja Under Bridge to the Alausa Secretariat.

“From Ikeja Under Bridge up to Alausa, the protesters marched peacefully without disturbing anybody,” he said.

Falana said the situation changed when no government official came out to receive a letter addressed to the Lagos State Governor.

“The protesters sang some songs which the police considered offensive, and at that stage decided, at very close range, to teargas the protesters,” he said.

He expressed concern over the nature of the injuries sustained by some demonstrators, describing them as unusual.

“The injury I’ve seen is not normal. I’ve taken part in protests in this country for over 40 years.”

I’ve never seen a situation where a teargas canister would pierce somebody’s skin to that level,” Falana said.

He suggested that expired teargas canisters may have been used during the operation.

Falana stressed that singing abusive or vulgar songs does not constitute a criminal offence under Nigerian law.

“It is not the law in Nigeria that you will be brutalised for singing abusive songs,” he said.

He cited a Court of Appeal decision which held that public officers must tolerate criticism in a democratic society.

“If a public officer is too sensitive or irascible, the court advised that he should cover his ears with cotton wool,” Falana said.

He rejected claims that protesters require police permission before demonstrating, describing such a requirement as a relic of colonialism.

“You do not need a police permit to protest. All the law requires is notification, and the police are duty-bound to provide security,” he said.

Falana said the essence of protest is to draw attention to grievances.

“If you confine protesters to a corner, how would the government know that people are protesting?” he asked.

He expressed hope that lessons would be learnt from the incident, warning against the erosion of constitutional rights.

The protest was organised by activists Comrade Hassan Taiwo, popularly known as Soweto, and Mr. Dele Frank, to demand an end to demolition exercises affecting waterfront communities.

The demonstration was intended to draw the attention of the Lagos State Government to what organisers described as illegal demolitions and forced evictions. However, the protest later turned violent after police fired teargas at demonstrators, leaving several people injured and drawing condemnation from human rights groups.

February 3, 2026
Lagos sensitises residents on traffic, environmental laws

Lagos State Government, through the Special Offences (Mobile) Court, has conducted a public sensitization programme across the state.

The event which held on Friday at the Lagos Safety Arena and other key locations including Oshodi, Iyana Ipaja, Ojota, and Ikorodu was part of its ongoing efforts to educate members of the public on compliance with environmental and traffic laws.

The sensitization exercise, themed “Justice on Wheels: Know the Law, Keep Lagos Clean, Safe and Orderly,” focused on key areas including one-way violations, misuse of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lanes, and obstruction of public spaces.

Read Also: FG, states, councils share ₦1.969tr December revenue at FAAC meeting

The State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr. Lawal Pedro, (SAN), who was represented by the Director, Citizens’ Rights, Mr. Ogunsanya Jonathan, emphasized the State Government’s commitment to justice, stating that it is accessible, corrective, and people-centered.

“The Mobile Court is not only an instrument of enforcement but also a vital platform for public education. Through sensitization exercises like this, we seek to prevent infractions by ensuring that citizens clearly understand their rights, responsibilities, and the consequences of violating the law,” he said.

Mr. Pedro further reiterated that the Lagos State Government remains resolute in adopting lawful and humane approaches to strengthen civic responsibility and uphold the rule of law across the State.

Earlier, the Coordinator of the Special Offences (Mobile) Court, Mr. Olufemi Adekunle, explained that the sensitization programme was designed to bridge the information gap between the justice system and the public.

“Our goal is to reduce avoidable offences by bringing legal knowledge directly to the people. When citizens understand the law, compliance becomes easier and enforcement less necessary,” he said.

Also speaking at the event, the Chairman, Lagos State Environmental Sanitation and Special Offences, Mr. Adetayo Akerele, stated that environmental cleanliness and traffic discipline are central to public safety in Lagos State.

He stressed that offences such as obstruction, misuse of BRT lanes, and driving against traffic undermine the State’s efforts to keep Lagos clean, safe, and orderly, urging residents to comply with existing laws for the collective good of all.

The event featured interactive engagements with the public at various bus stops, distribution of fliers, and practical explanations of common offences and penalties handled by the Special Offences (Mobile) Court.

Members of the public were encouraged to comply with traffic regulations, uphold environmental cleanliness, and carry out their daily activities in accordance with the law, as the Ministry of Justice remains committed to promoting a just, orderly, and law-abiding State.

February 3, 2026
Police arraign developer over alleged N1.33b fraud
- Beachway Homes boss Adeyinka pleads not guilty
The police have arraigned a real estate developer, Adeyinka Lawal, at the Federal High Court in Lagos over an alleged N1.33 billion fraud.

The Force Criminal Investigation Department (Force CID), Annex, Alagbon–Ikoyi, charged Lawal, the Chief Executive Officer of Beachway Homes Limited, alongside his company, before Justice Deinde Dipeolu. The charge is numbered FHC/L/392c/2025.

The prosecution alleged conspiracy, obtaining money by false pretence, money laundering, fraudulent conversion and fraud.

Prosecuting counsel, Samuel Ogala, told the court that the 60-year-old defendant, his company and others now at large allegedly committed the offences between 2020 and 2023 at Elegushi, Lekki, Lagos State.

According to the prosecution, Lawal, with the intent to defraud, obtained the sum of N1.33 billion from one Mr. Ifeanyi Nweke under the false pretence that the money would be used to build a 52-unit estate at Ilesan–Elegushi, Lekki.

Ogala told the court that the representation was false and that the defendant knew it to be so.

Read Also: Police urge NLC to shelve Tuesday’s planned protest

He further alleged that upon receiving the money, Lawal fraudulently converted the funds to his personal use.

The prosecutor said the alleged offences contravened Sections 8 and 1(1)(3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and were punishable under Section 390(9) of the Criminal Code Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria (LFN) 2004.

He also told the court that the defendant’s actions contravened Section 7(2)(b) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, as well as Section 20(b) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The defendant pleaded not guilty to all the charges.

The prosecutor informed the court that the defendant had yet to fulfil the bail conditions earlier granted by the court.

He urged the court to remand the defendant in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) pending compliance with the bail terms.

Defence counsel told the court that he had been indisposed since his client was arraigned and released to him in July 2025, explaining that this accounted for the delay in perfecting the bail.

Justice Dipeolu ordered that the defendant be remanded at the Nigerian Correctional Service facility pending the fulfilment of the bail conditions.

The case was adjourned to March 18 for trial.

The charges against the defendants read in part:

“That you, Adeyinka Lawal ‘M’, Beachway Homes Ltd. and others now at large, between the years 2020 and 2023 at the Elegushi–Lekki area of Lagos State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did conspire amongst yourselves to commit felony, to wit: obtaining money by false pretence, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 8 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006.

“That you, ADEYINKA LAWAL ‘M’, BEACHWAY HOMES LTD. and others now at large, between the years 2020 and 2023 at the Elegushi–Lekki area of Lagos State, did with intent to defraud fraudulently obtain the sum of N1.33 billion from Mr. Ifeanyi Nweke under the pretence of using same to build a 52-unit estate at Ilesan–Elegushi, Lekki, a representation you knew to be false.

“That you fraudulently converted the sum of N1.33 billion belonging to Mr. Ifeanyi Nweke to your own use.

“That you laundered, transferred and retained the said sum of N1.33 billion, thereby committing offences contrary to and punishable under the relevant provisions of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Fraud Related Offences Act, 2006, and the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
February 3, 2026
Activist seeks Electoral Act amendment before primaries

An activist and advocate, Princess Abiodun Islamiyat Oyefusi, has urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to assent to the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill before the commencement of party primaries.

She made the call in a legal brief, in which she also demanded strict and uniform enforcement of the amended law across Nigeria’s political system.

The memorandum, dated February 2, and issued from the Royal Castle of Mercy, Lowa, Ikorodu, framed the proposed amendment as a constitutional and democratic imperative rather than a matter of administrative convenience or timing.

Oyefusi warned that proceeding with party primaries under an outdated or uncertain legal framework could undermine the legitimacy of candidates, trigger extensive pre-election litigation, and erode public confidence in Nigeria’s democratic process.

In the legal brief addressed to the President, Oyefusi raised three central questions: whether failure to enact the amendment before party primaries undermines legal certainty and the rule of law; whether legislative delay heightens the risk of pre-election disputes capable of disrupting the electoral calendar; and whether strict enforcement of the amended Act is essential to safeguarding internal party democracy and overall electoral integrity.

Anchoring her arguments on provisions of the 1999 Constitution, including the sovereignty of the people and citizens’ right to political participation, Oyefusi also referenced the constitutional mandate of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and the existing framework of the Electoral Act 2022.

Read Also: FG, states, councils share ₦1.969tr December revenue at FAAC meeting

She argued that electoral laws must be settled, clear, and enforceable before political parties begin their nomination processes.

According to the brief, primaries conducted under a legal regime that is later amended are vulnerable to conflicting interpretations, disputes over retrospective application of the law, and possible judicial invalidation of nominations.

Such uncertainty, she noted, offends the doctrine of legal certainty and destabilises the entire electoral process.

Oyefusi further contended that delay in enacting the amendment weakens INEC institutionally, forcing the commission to operate within what she described as an “acknowledgedly deficient framework.”

She warned that in such circumstances, INEC’s guidelines lack firm statutory backing, while its regulatory and enforcement actions become more susceptible to legal challenge.

Timely assent to the amendment, she argued, would empower INEC to regulate party primaries with greater clarity, authority, and confidence.

Drawing from Nigeria’s electoral history, the brief linked the majority of pre-election disputes to flawed party primaries. Oyefusi cautioned that legislative delay encourages forum shopping by aggrieved aspirants, produces conflicting court decisions, and places additional strain on the judiciary, with potential consequences for electoral timelines and outcomes.

She maintained that enacting the amendment before primaries would establish a uniform legal standard applicable to all political parties, thereby significantly reducing litigation risks.

On the issue of internal party democracy, Oyefusi described it as a legal obligation rather than a political ideal.

She noted that the proposed amendments seek to clarify delegate eligibility, regulate nomination procedures, and prescribe sanctions for non-compliance by political parties. Without timely enactment and firm enforcement, she warned, party leaderships would continue to exercise excessive discretion, enabling manipulation, exclusion, and arbitrary outcomes that undermine democratic norms within parties.

The brief also linked early and even-handed enforcement of the amended law to public trust and democratic legitimacy.

Oyefusi argued that electoral credibility begins long before election day, at the stage where candidates emerge from party processes.

She warned that unclear or selectively enforced rules diminish public confidence, while rigorous and uniform enforcement signals transparency and respect for voters’ choices.

Emphasising that “legislation without enforcement is ineffectual,” Oyefusi called on INEC to apply the amended provisions uniformly and without political accommodation.

She also urged that political parties be held strictly accountable for compliance and that the courts resist technical manoeuvres that defeat the clear intent of the legislature.

Selective or weak enforcement, she cautioned, would only perpetuate the systemic defects the amendment seeks to address.

Oyefusi described the signing of the Electoral Act (Amendment) Bill before party primaries as a legal and democratic necessity.

She warned that any delay could undermine legal certainty, fuel avoidable litigation, weaken institutional authority, and compromise the integrity of the electoral process.

She therefore urged President Tinubu to assent to the bill without delay, called on INEC to immediately issue binding guidelines aligned with the amended Act, and demanded that political parties be compelled to demonstrate strict compliance as a condition for candidate recognition.

According to her, decisive and uniform enforcement of the amended law is critical to safeguarding Nigeria’s democratic credibility ahead of future elections.

February 3, 2026
DSVA partners monarchs to boost anti-SGBV fight

The Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency (DSVA) has intensified its campaign against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV) with engagement visits to selected paramount traditional rulers in the Epe Division of the state.

The visits, which took place last week, formed part of the agency’s ongoing community engagement and advocacy efforts aimed at strengthening collaboration with traditional institutions in preventing and responding to SGBV across Lagos State.

The primary objective of the courtesy visits was to formally engage the monarchs, secure their royal support and agree on suitable dates for community sensitisation programmes on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence within their respective domains.

The visits also sought to reinforce the vital role of traditional institutions in promoting community awareness, encouraging early reporting of abuse and fostering positive behavioural change at the grassroots level.

Members of the DSVA delegation visited His Royal Majesty, Alayeiluwa Oba Nurani Sikiru Odedina (Alughin I), the Oni Ladaba of Ladaba Kingdom; His Royal Majesty, Alayeiluwa Oba Engr. Sulaimon Adesina Adebowale (Ilufemiloye, Akenren II), the Omola of Odomola Kingdom; and His Royal Majesty, Alayeiluwa Oba Abdurasaq Akanni Musa, the Orijeru of Igbooye Kingdom.

Read Also: Police urge NLC to shelve Tuesday’s planned protest

The delegation was warmly received by the royal fathers and their palace chiefs.

During the engagements, the team outlined the mandate of the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Violence Agency and highlighted the prevalence and impact of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence within communities.

Discussions focused on various forms of SGBV, including domestic violence, sexual assault, child abuse and other harmful practices, as well as the importance of community-based prevention strategies and early reporting.

The delegation also emphasised the availability of DSVA support services and referral pathways, stressing the need for sustained sensitisation to dispel myths, reduce stigma and promote survivor-centred responses.

The traditional rulers expressed keen interest in the agency’s interventions and acknowledged the growing relevance of SGBV awareness within their communities.

They reaffirmed their commitment to supporting initiatives aimed at protecting the dignity, safety and well-being of women, children and other vulnerable persons.

The visits yielded positive outcomes, with all the monarchs pledging their support for DSVA-led sensitisation programmes in their kingdoms.

Agreements were reached to schedule community engagement sessions at mutually convenient dates, during which chiefs, youth leaders, women groups and other community stakeholders would be mobilised.

The monarchs also assured the agency of their readiness to use their influence to promote peaceful coexistence and encourage the reporting of SGBV cases through appropriate channels.

The engagement strengthened collaboration between the DSVA and traditional institutions in the Epe Division and underscored the importance of royal leadership in community-based advocacy against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence.

The Lagos State Government reaffirmed its commitment to working closely with traditional rulers and other stakeholders to ensure safer communities and more effective prevention of, and response to, SGBV across the state.

February 3, 2026