A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted bail to a lawyer, Ahmed Abdulrahman, accused of cyberbullying a serving member of the Senate, Senator Shehu Buba, to N5million bail and two sureties in like sum.
Justice Rita Ofili-Ajumogobia granted the bail in a ruling on Monday, in which she said Abdulraman must produce two sureties.
Justice Ajumogobia said the two sureties must have landed property with a Certificate of Occupancy in the Federal Capital Territory.
She added that the sureties must submit the certificate of occupancy of the property and their international passport to the court, and that the defendant should remain in custody till the bail conditions are perfected
Ahmed Abdulrahman, a lawyer, and four others are being prosecuted by the Inspector-General (IGP) on allegations bordering on cyberbullying Senator Shehu Umar Buba, Chairman, Senate Committee on National Security and Intelligence.
The IGP, in charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/526/2025 and filed by Anthony Egwu on October 6,
named Abdulrahman, 41 years; Daure David, 35; Ishaq Muhammed, 25; Abdulrashid Musa, 30; and Nasir Abubakar, 21, as 1st to 5th defendants respectively.
The defendants were, on October 30, arraigned on an 11-count charge which also bordered on cybercrime, defamation, and advance fee fraud, among others.
They, however, pleaded not guilty to the counts, and Justice Ajumogobia ordered their remand at the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID).
In count one, the defendants were alleged to have, sometime in 2025, conspired among themselves “to commit an offence, to wit: cyberstalking against Senator Shehu Buba Umar.”
The offence is said to be contrary to Section 27(1)(b) and punishable under Section 21(1)(b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention etc.) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024.
In count three, Abdulrahman, the 1st defendant, was alleged to have, sometime in 2025, intentionally sent a video via his TikTok handle with the user name “Kibanna Channel” and his YouTube channel to defame the lawmaker by linking him to sponsorship of banditry with a view to tarnishing his image as a serving Senator.
The suspect was alleged to have stated that “Senator Umar, a serving Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is a sponsor of banditry and called for his investigation, a statement you made by means of computer systems and network knowing same to be false, for the purpose of causing breakdown of law and order and causing the Senator fear of death”.
The offence is also said to be contrary to Section 24(1)(5) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act 2015 (as amended) 2024, among other counts.
In one of the counts, Daure David was accused of attempting to collect N5 million from Senator Umar Umar under false pretence that the money would be used to settle those planning to protest against him.
A High Court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) sitting in Maitama has adjourned till February 19, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses in the N5.5billion defamation suit against a group, the Socio-economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP).
Justice Halilu Yusuf chose the date on Monday after the defendants concluded their defence after calling their witness.
Listed with SERAP as defendants in the suit, marked: CV/4547/2024, is its Deputy Director, Kolawole Oluwadare.
In the suit filed in the names of two officials of DSS – Sarah John and Gabriel Ogundele – the claimants accused the defendants of making a false claim that John and Ogundele invaded SERAP’s Abuja office on September 9, 2024.
At the commencement of proceedings on Monday, Oluwadare, who testified as the defendant’s witness, adopted his statement on oath and gave further information about what he knew in relation to the incident of September 9, 2024.
Oluwadare said SERAP is a registered non-governmental organisation that champions advancing transparency, accountability, and social justice in the country.
The witness, who was led in evidence by the defendants’ lawyer, Oluwatosin Adesioye, admitted that SERAP operates with funding from local and international donor agencies.
Under cross-examination by the claimant’s lawyer, Oluwagbemileke Kehinde, the witness said he made the publication complained about based on the information he got from one Vivian Amadi, a Front Desk Officer and Receptionist in SERAP’s Abuja office.
The witness admitted that he was not present in the office, but was called by one Vivian Amadi to inform him of the presence of the DSS officials in SERAP’s premises.
Oluwadare was handed two documents, including the publication complained about by the claimant, and was asked to read out the first paragraph to the hearing of everyone in court.
In the publication posted on the SERAP website, the witness raised an alarm, claiming that the DSS had invaded SERAP’s Abuja office unlawfully, intimidating and harassing its staff, and calling on President Bola Tinubu to call the DSS officials to order.
After reading, the witness admitted using the words – unlawful, intimidating, and harassing – in the publications, but disagreed that the words used in the publications are serious allegations against the two claimants.
The witness admitted not consulting with the DSS before making the publications, adding that while they were in SERAP’s office, the two DSS officials did not brandish any weapon.
He also confirmed that throughout their presence, the two DSS officials did not seize or damage any property, nor was any staff of SERAP physically assaulted by the security agents.
Oluwadare admitted that the DSS officials did not break down any door to gain entry into SERAP’s office.
He said he was told that the first claimant (Sarah John) was making calls and asking other officials of the DSS not to come inside the SERAP office.
The witness claimed to have the CCTV footage of the DSS officials’ entrance into the SERAP’s office.
In the suit, the claimants stated, among others, that the alleged false claim by SERAP has negatively impacted their reputation and that of the two officials involved.
They also stated, in their statement of claim, that, in line with its practice of engaging with officials of non-governmental organisations operating in the FCT to establish a relationship with their new leadership, it directed the two officials – John and Ogunleye – to visit SERAP’s office and invite its new leadership for a familiarisation meeting.
The claimants added that in carrying out the directive, John and Ogunleye paid a friendly visit to SERAP’s office at 18 Bamako Street, Wuse Zone 1, Abuja on September 9 and met with one Ruth, who upon being informed about the purpose of the visit, claimed that none of SERAP’s management staff was in the country and advised that a formal letter of invitation be written by the DSS.
John and Ogundele, who claimed that their interactions with Ruth were recorded, said that before they immediately exited SERAP’s office, Ruth promised to inform her organisation’s management about the visit and volunteered a phone number – 08160537202.
They said it was surprising that, shortly after their visit, SERAP posted on its X (Twitter) handle: @SERAPNigeria, that officers of the DSS are presently unlawfully occupying its office.
The claimant added that “on the same day, the defendants also published a statement on SERAP’s website, which was widely reported by several media outfits, falsely alleging that some officers from the DSS, described as “a fall, large, dark-skinned woman” and “a slim, dark skinned man,” invaded their Abuja office and interrogated the staff of the first defendant (SERAP).
John and Ogundele stated that “due to the false statements published by the defendants, the DSS has been ridiculed and criticised by international agencies such as Amnesty International and prominent members of the Nigerian society, such as Femi Falana (SAN).
“Due to the false statements published by the defendants, members of the public and the international community formed the opinion that the Federal Government is using the DSS to harass the defendants.”
They added that the defendants’ statements caused harm to the claimants’ reputation because the staff and management of the DSS have formed the opinion that the claimants did not follow orders and carried out an unsanctioned operation, and are therefore incompetent and unprofessional.
The claimants are therefore praying the court for the following reliefs:
*An order directing the defendants to tender an apology to the claimants via the first defendant’s (SERAP’s) website, X (twitter) handle, two national daily newspapers (Punch and Vanguard) and two national news television stations (Arise Television and Channels Television) for falsely accusing the claimants of unlawfully invading the first defendant’s office and interrogating the first defendant’s staff.
*An order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N5billion as damages for the libellous statements published about the claimants.
*Interest on the sum of N5b at the rate of 10 percent per annum from the date of judgment until the judgment sum is realised or liquidated.
*AN order directing the defendants to pay the claimants the sum of N50million as costs of this action.
The Lagos State Police Command has described as untrue, baseless, and mischievous allegations that its Commissioner (CP) Olohundare Jimoh defied a court order that policemen deployed to NESTOIL premises should vacate.
The command in a statement on Sunday insisted that it complied with the court order as soon as it was received and verified to be true, describing the widely publicized alleged defiance as a clear misrepresentation of facts capable of misleading the public.
The statement signed by the spokesperson for the command, SP Abimbola Adebisi, stressed that the allegations were intentionally created to cast aspersions on the neutrality of the police in the entire episode.
“The Lagos Police Commissioner respects the laws of the land in all circumstances, and he is under strict obligations to abide by orders, decisions, and pronouncements of every Court of Law throughout Nigeria, and he has never done anything to disrespect the law and will not carry out any act either overtly or covertly to disobey the court orders in any way.
“Court orders are sacrosanct and must be promptly obeyed in totality without any iota of contemplation by the Police, and this was strictly abided by the Lagos State Commissioner of Police in the case of NESTOIL Premises,” it stated.
Setting the record straight, the command said it received a court order in respect of NESTOIL premises at about 5:50 pm on Thursday, November 20.
“The Court Order was promptly attended to and sent to the Police Legal Department of the Lagos State Command for verification and confirmation of the authenticity from the issuing court. The response to the confirmation was received in the evening of the 21st of November, 2025.
“Subsequent to this, all police personnel in the premises were withdrawn immediately without any further delay in compliance with the Court Order on the same date of 21st November, 2025.
“It therefore came as a surprise shock to the Lagos Police Commissioner of Police’s attention to be drawn to the publications and interviews in some sections of the media that “LAGOS POLICE COMMISSIONER DEFIES COURT ORDER ON NESTOIL PREMISES“. “This story is untrue, incorrect, and misleading. This is a wicked attempt to join the Police in the issue of the NESTOIL and other parties in the matter.
“For avoidance of doubt, the Lagos Police Commissioner never stepped on the premises of NESTOIL on the 20th November, 2025, and on 21st November, 2025. The roles of the Police are limited to giving protection to the Court Sheriff as they carry out the enforcement of Court Orders and maintenance of peace, law, and order during the process. There was no time when the police prevented this process.
“It is incumbent on the Lagos State Police Command to educate the mischief-makers and mischievous persons who are bent on dragging the Lagos Police Commissioner into the matter that the Police has no power to seal any premises, including that of NESTOIL.
Police responsibilities under the law are to protect the Sheriff in the enforcement of court orders, or any other person(s) so directed by the court, and other public officials in carrying out their lawful duties as earlier stated above.
The Lagos State Police Command, therefore, enjoins all the parties involved in the case to concentrate on the proceedings of their legal processes in court and not to drag the police into unnecessary controversy in the matter,” the command added.
An Edo State High Court, sitting in Benin City, has barred Okao of Ologbo Community, Mr. Eric Osawaru, from trespassing on, or erecting structures on the 1511.269 hectares of land situate at Ossiomo Industrial Park, Ologbo, lkpoba Okha Local government area of Edo state.
The court presided over by Hon Justice Mary Itsueli, which granted the injunction, also restrained the defendants from selling the land housing Ossiomo Industrial park.
Deputy General Manager of the company, Engnr. Francis Ekwe, in a statement, said a Federal High court in Abuja had also ordered a status quo between Ossiomo Power and the Jiangsu Communication Clean Energy Technology Co. Ltd. (CCETC) be maintained.
We refer you to the Order of Honourable Justice D. E. Osiagoi delivered on the 20th day of November, 2025 in respect of the above mentioned matter (herein attached) and wish to request that you withdraw your officers from the premises of the Defendants in view of the fact that the Order has been set aside.
We look forward to your cooperation in this regard.
A Federal High Court in Ibadan has restrained the Soun of Ogbomoso, Oba Ghandi Olaoye, from sacking the executive of the Egbe Omo Ogbomoso Parapo Agbaaye and imposing a caretaker committee.
The Nation reports that the monarch had earlier in September pronounced the dissolution of the association’s executive and announced Prof. Josiah Ajiboye as acting president, heading a caretaker committee pending the election of a new substantive executive.
However, the acting president appointed by the association, Alhaji Yusuf Adetayo, and two other members – Mr Tolani Balogun and Alhaji Bukola Badmus – dragged Oba Ghandi, Ajiboye, and the association’s registered trustees to court, seeking an order restraining the monarch from effecting the change.
They argued that Oba Olaoye does not have the power to sack the executive and impose leaders on the association. They explained that the association is independent and guided by its own constitution, being a Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) registered entity.
The applicants sought an order restraining Ajiboye and his purported committee from forcefully displacing the acting exco appointed by the association from the secretariat, pending the determination of the motion on notice.
They also sought an order restraining the caretaker committee from taking any step towards conducting an election or appointing any persons to office, thereby displacing the legally installed acting executive from the secretariat.
Delivering a ruling on an ex parte motion filed by the applicants’ lawyers on Monday, the presiding judge, Justice N. E. Maha, ordered both parties to maintain the status quo ante pending the determination of the motion on notice filed on November 11, 2025.
The court also directed the applicants to serve the certified true copy of the enrolled order and the motion on notice seeking interlocutory injunction orders and originating summons, as well as other relevant papers on the respondents within 48 hours.
A hearing notice was also ordered to be served on the respondents, while the hearing of the pending motion seeking interlocutory orders was adjourned to December 1, 2025.
The association, which comprises all Ogbomoso indigenes worldwide, has the Soun of Ogbomoso as the life grand patron with other monarchs in the area as life patrons.
The life patrons include the Olugbon of Orile-Igbon, Onikoyi of Ikoyi, Aresadu of Iresaadu, and Alajaawa of Ajaawa.
A Federal High Court in Abuja has convicted Nnamdi Kanu of the proscribed separatist group, Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on the offence of engaging in act of terrorism.
Justice James Omotosho, in his ongoing judgment in Kanu’s terrorism trial, found him guilty in relation to counts one and two of the seven-count charge being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Justice Omotosho held that the threats of violence and killings, including the declaration of sit at home in the South East states, in his many broadcasts constitute acts of terrorism.
The Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice Babatunde Adejumo, has argued that it was not unusual for courts of coordinate jurisdiction to render conflicting decisions on cases with similar facts. But lawyers argue that stakeholders should be more concerned about the impact on public trust rather than engaging in mere jurisprudential debate, writes Assistant Editor ERIC IKHILAE
The recurring development, where courts of coordinate jurisdiction issue conflicting orders on cases with similar facts, has always raised concern.
Many have consistently condemned such developments and called for sanctions.
But last week, the Administrator of the National Judicial Institute (NJI), Justice Babatunde Adejumo, added a new perspective that sought to justify such occurrences.
Justice Adejumo’s perspective
Justice Adejumo, who was reacting to the controversy over the conflicting decisions by two Federal High Courts in Abuja and a High Court in Oyo State on the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), said no court of coordinate jurisdiction is bound by the decision of another.
Justice Adejumo, the immediate past President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), said judges give judgments based on their understanding of the law and the evidence presented.
He said the controversies generated by instances of conflicting decisions by courts were unnecessary because there are always remedies available under the law.
Justice Adejumo said, even in what appears as the worst scenario – where two courts in the same jurisdiction give conflicting decisions – that did not mean any wrong had been committed, except it is established that an ulterior motive was involved.
He said: “You see, in the Judiciary, respective judges give judgments according to their understanding of the law and the way they see things.
“And, you don’t just give judgment, judgment must be based on the facts as presented to the court and, as provable with credible evidence.
“That is why, even in the United States of America, which is believed as the oldest democracy, and where they have a judicial system that is superb, they have state courts.
“A court in New York or Washington may deliver a judgment, and when another court in Maryland, just some few kilometres away, or New Jersey, very close to New York, may give a different opinion about the same set of facts.
“It depends on the interpretation of the law based on the facts and evidence,” he said.
Justice Adejumo, who said any conflict in both decisions could easily be resolved on appeal, noted: “That is why we have ladders of courts.
“If two, three courts give conflicting decisions on the same subject matter, the aggrieved party may proceed to the Court of Appeal, which will have a better say.
“If any of the parties is not yet satisfied, it goes to the apex court, which is the final court. And, whatever that court says on that matter settles that issue.”
Latest case of conflicting decisions
The most recent conflicting decisions are on the national convention of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) held in Ibadan, Oyo State, between November 15 and 16.
On October 11, Justice James Omotosho ordered the maintenance of the status quo in a suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/2120/2025, filed by Austine Nwachukwu (PDP Chairman in Imo State); Amah Abraham Nnanna (PDP Chairman, Abia State) and Turnah George, Secretary, PDP Southsouth).
The plaintiffs had queried the propriety of the national convention and urged the court to, among others, order the PDP to comply with its constitution and other relevant laws before it could hold a convention.
In a judgment on October 31, Justice Omotosho ordered that preparations for the convention be put on hold pending when the PDP would comply with the provisions of its constitution, the Nigerian Constitution and the Electoral Act.
The judge restrained the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) from monitoring the convention until the PDP complies with the relevant laws in relation to the holding of a convention.
However, on November 5, Justice Ladiran Akintola of the High Court of Oyo State issued an ex-parte order, granting permission to the PDP to proceed with its planned convention.
On November 11, Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja issued an order of interim injunction stopping the PDP from proceeding with plans for the convention.
The order, which was to subsist pending the determination of the substantive suit, was issued in a suit filed by former governor of Jigawa State, Sule Lamido, who claimed to have been prevented from obtaining form to contest the party’s chairman position.
On November 13, Justice Akintola extended his earlier order, granting permission to the PDP to proceed with the convention.
On November 14, Justice Lifu delivered judgment in the suit by Lamido and ordered the PDP not to hold the convention without Lamido’s being allowed to contest the chairmanship position.
The only known instance when judges were sanctioned for issuing conflicting decisions was in relation to the leadership dispute in the PDP in 2021.
Within five days in August 2021, three courts in different states issued conflicting orders about the PDP national chairman’s office.
On August 24, 2021, Justice Okogbule Gbasam of the High Court of Rivers State in Port Harcourt issued an order, restraining Uche Secondus from parading himself as PDP National Chairman.
On August 27, 2021, Justice Nusirat I. Umar of the High Court of Kebbi State issued another order, restoring Secondus as the national chairman of the opposition PDP.
On August 28, 2021, Justice Edem Ita Kooffreh of the High Court of Cross River State issued an interim order, restraining Secondus from resuming office as PDP National Chairman.
The National Judicial Council (NJC) was forced to wield the big stick when, after its meeting in December 2021, it announced sanctions against the three judges.
The NJC barred Justice Gbasam from enjoying promotion for two years for failing “to exercise due diligence in granting an ex parte order in suit No: PHC/2183/CS/2021 between Ibealwuchi Earnest Alex & four others and Prince Uche Secondus & another, as there was no real urgency in the circumstances of the matter that would have required an ex parte order.”
Justice Gbasam was also issued a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such ex-parte orders in the future.
Justice Umar was also barred from elevation to the higher Bench for two years for his failure to comply with the law in granting an ex-parte order in suit No: KB/HC/M.71/2021 between Yahaya Usman & two others and Prince Uche Secondus & another.
The judge was also issued a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such an order in the future.
Justice Kooffreh was barred from enjoying promotion for five years for allowing himself to be used as a tool for “forum shopping” and abuse of court processes in suit No: HC/240/2021 between Mr Enang Kanum Wani and Uche Secondus.
The NJC said it was evident that in granting the ex-parte order, the judge was aware of earlier orders of the High Courts of Rivers and Kebbi states, being courts of coordinate jurisdiction with his.
The NJC issued Justice Kooffreh a warning letter to be circumspect in granting such ex parte orders in the future and placed him on its watch list for two years.
Impact on public trust
Lawyers, like Jibrin Okutepa (SAN), Otunba Tunde Falola and Jonathan Iyieke, said it was necessary that stakeholders should be more concerned about the effect of conflicting decisions on the reputation of the judicial system.
Okutepa cautioned the Judiciary to be wary of the antics of politicians, whom he referred to as “majorly democratic despots and terrors.”
He accused politicians of destroying every institution of democracy.
The SAN said: “The destruction of these vital democratic institutions is worrying me as a lawyer.
“I am worried that we are watching the reckless use of judicial institutions to kill democracy in the exercise of rights that are not recognised by law.”
Referring to the latest case of the PDP national convention, Okutepa said: “One is completely at a loss at the kind of orders flying left, right and centre by Nigerian courts in sabotage of democracy and the rule of law when, from the facts, there are no party primaries in all these cases.
“The judiciary must not be ridiculed further. The sanctity of the judiciary must be preserved. The Nigerian judiciary must not be destroyed.
“Once it is destroyed, the hopes of Nigerians are destroyed forever.
“Democracy is heading to a calamitous end given the despotic and thuggish approach to democracy by the majority of Nigerian politicians,” Okutepa said.
Falola said he agreed with Justice Adejumo’s position only to the extent that there is nothing unusual about courts of coordinate jurisdiction delivering conflicting decisions on the same subject matter.
He argued that the issue transcends mere jurisprudential debate, but touches on the erosion of public trust when citizens are confronted with contradictory judicial pronouncements.
Falola noted that the conflicting decisions over the PDP national convention “is not too good for our democratic system.
“Both courts are courts of coordinate jurisdiction, yet their contradictory orders have plunged the party, its members, and the larger public into a state of unnecessary and avoidable confusion.”
Falola was of the view that conflicting court decisions in politically sensitive matters, as in this instance, are far from harmless technicalities.
He added: “They carry significant consequences. They create uncertainty about which order ought to be obeyed.
“They undermine the rule of law, suggesting that court orders are matters of convenience rather than binding directives.
“They weaken internal party democracy, as political actors learn to ‘shop’ for favourable courts instead of respecting established processes.
“When courts speak with two voices on the same issue, the public is left wondering: Which order do we obey?
“This is dangerous for any constitutional democracy. The judiciary remains the last line of defence in any democracy.
“When courts of coordinate jurisdictions issue conflicting orders, especially in matters impacting political stability, the resulting damage goes far beyond the immediate litigants.
“It shakes the very foundation of public confidence in the justice system. For the sake of our democracy, the courts must speak with clarity, finality, and unity,” Falola said.
How to stem the tide
To Justice Adejumo, although conflicting decisions are not unusual, they could be prevented where necessary modalities are in place.
He said the various courts could amend their rules “to provide that, for you to come to court, seeking redress, you must swear to an affidavit that, to the best of your knowledge, this issue (the subject matter of your case) has not been presented before any court of law.
“And, if it is later discovered that you lied, you are held to be perjuring on oath and a decision to sentence is provided. So, until that is done, the situation will remain.”
Justice Adejumo also suggested people should petition the NJC if they believe that the reason behind the conflicting decisions has an ulterior motive.
Falola said the PDP convention episode underscores the urgent need for judges of coordinate courts to resist issuing orders that contradict final decisions already delivered elsewhere on the same subject matter.
Stressing the need for stricter intervention from the NJC, Falola argued that it must not treat conflicting orders in political cases as routine occurrences, because such developments damage the credibility of the Judiciary as an institution.
He also suggested the need for such cases to enjoy swift intervention by the appellate court to promptly restore order by providing a single, authoritative interpretation.
Advocating for a long-term structural reform, Falola suggested the need for the country to revisit the overlapping jurisdiction between Federal and State High Courts, “which continues to encourage forum shopping and contradictory rulings.”
All eyes on appellate courts
Iyieke said that once conflicting decisions occur, the earliest decision is considered the position until a higher court sitting on appeal overturns it.
He said: “It’s strange nowadays where many courts of the same jurisdiction, especially our high court in states and the Federal High Court, roll out different decisions on a particular matter without consideration of the earlier position of their learned colleague in the matter.
“I think it borders on judicial rascality to the hallowed uniformity of the decision-making principle.
“I think judges should be more prolific and tilt towards utility when making a judgment in a matter. Decision-making is primarily to calm nerves, whether in politics or otherwise.
“I do not think it’s to aggravate and/or sponsor confusing conflicts, thereby infusing hopelessness in our society.
“Whatever may be the position, litigants should resort to the earlier decision made against the latter.
“Parties should also look out for a political resolution of the matter and appeal for an interpretation of the decisions made in the conflicting judgment.
“I hazard to say that where conflict of judgment occurs and it’s discovered that the later decision is made with impunity and to cause commotion and unnecessary chaos in the political arena and our society, the judge who made that later decision should be sanctioned and, in most cases, be demoted.”
But, for Director of the Abuja School of Social and Political Thought, Dr Sam Amadi, the PDP convention remains valid and legally recognised despite earlier conflicting court rulings.
Speaking during an interview with Arise News, Amadi said the most recent court order issued before the convention permitted the event to hold, rendering previous contradictory orders ineffective.
According to him, the controversy surrounding the party’s leadership crisis was fuelled by what he described as INEC’s failure to act as a regulatory authority, as well as courts issuing “contradictory and unnecessary” ex parte orders.
He argued that the convention was backed by law, noting that the latest decision from the court supported its conduct.
“This convention has legalisation,” Amadi declared.
A Lagos Chief Magistrates’ Court sitting at Tinubu square has ordered two men who stood sureties for a suspect, Kayode Adeyemi, facing criminal trial to produce him in court on December 19.
Chief Magistrate O.O. Olatunji issued the order following persistent absence of the defendant in court.
According to the charge sheet, A/66/2025, Adeyemi, alongside others at large, is facing a three count charge offence bothering on forgery, conduct likely to cause breach of peace, forging deed of assignment document registered as 5/5/2632 in a property located at Maiyegun Family land, Maiyegun Village, belonging to Chief Cyril Okoye.
He was also accused of conducting himself in a manner likely to cause the breach of peace by forging deed of assignment document registered as 5/5/2632 in a property located at Maiyegun Family land, Maiyegun Village, belonging to Chief Cyril Okoye and also constitute nuisance on the said land.
The offences are punishable under section 411, 365(3) (h) and section 168 (d) of Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015.
When the matter came up for hearing on Friday, the prosecutor, ASP Ishola Samuel told the court that the defendant was absent in court the second time.
Defence counsels, Ernest Ukpai, leading Ayodeji Adekunle, apologised for the absence of the defendant saying, “he is indisposed but the sureties are here in court.”
Chief Magistrate Olatunji who recalled that the defendant was also not in court at its last sitting. asked for the nature of illness.
Ukpai said, “my Lord, it is typhoid. It is a complicated issue.”
When Chief Magistrate Olatunji asked the prosecutor to confirm the nature of illness, he said he doesn’t have a copy of the defendant’s medical report.
Upon being presented with a copy of the medical report, he said, “:Medical report dated August 12, 2025. Defendant diagonised of malaria and typhoid”.
Ukpai stated further: “though I am not a medical doctor, the defendant has been on and off of the hospital. At the moment, the doctor said he should have complete bed rest”, adding that there is a legal advice in respect of the matter.
But the prosecutor responded that there are two conflicting legal advice in respect of the matter and that his office has responded to them appropriately and urged the court to adjourn the matter for a month.
Chief Magistrate Olatunji granted his request and ordered the sureties of the defendant to ensure the presence of Adeyemi in court at the next adjourned date.
“If you have to carry him to court, carry him. The sureties must bring him to court at the next adjourned date.
Chief Magistrate Olatunji adjourned further hearing in the matter to December 19.
Chief Magistrate O.O. Olatunji of a Lagos Chief Magistrates’ Court sitting at Tinubu has fixed November 24, 2025 for the trial of a forgery suspect, Mujitabat Maiyegun, 71 years.
Chief Magistrate Olatunji fixed the date after granting him bail in the sum of N5 million on account of his age.
The court ordered the suspect to also provide two sureties who must be community leaders and have evidence of tax payments to the state for last three years.
The suspect was arraigned before the court on a three count charge in a charge dated November 12, 2025 by the prosecutor ASP Ishola Samuel.
The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Counsel to the defendant, Ernest Ukpai, leading three other defence counsels, raised objection to the arrangement of Maiyegun by the Police.
Ukpai told the court that the defendant was once arraigned on Wednesday, November 12, 2025 before
Magistrate Tella of Court 2, Ebute Metta and that the matter was still before the court.
He said the defendant had earlier been arraigned in April 2024 before Ebute Metta court 7, adding that the matter was still on-going at the court.
He said the charge before the court was same as the one filed at Ebute Metta.
The trial Chief Magistrates’ clarified that the one on trial before his court was “forgery and conduct likely to cause breach of public peace, conspiracy and forceful entry.”
Prosecuting counsel, ASP Ishola Samuel countered the defence insisting that his submission was intended to mislead the court.
ASP Samuel expressed surprise at the submission of the defence which he said was intended to mislead the court .
He told the court that the case at Ebute Metta has been struck off and that the defence has nothing to substantiate their claims before the court.
ASP Samuel further clarified that there is no matter before Court 2.
“It was when there was nobody on ground here that we went to Ebute Metta. Getting there, the court was not sitting there too.
“We file a written report on the matter and attached CTC to show that the matter was still subsisting. If not so, it would have been struck out.,” he said
Ukpai subsequently applied for bail for his client in liberal terms in the interest of justice.
The prosecution, in his response to the bail request by the defence, said he would not object to bail application for the suspect informed the court that “ this suspect absconded while matter was at court 7,Ebute Metta, it took police to inject a lot of resources to arrest him.”
He prayed the court to these fact presented by the prosecution before granting bail to the defendant who he noted that was the head of high family by virtue of age.
The Chief Magistrates’ Olatunji, after considering the submissions of counsels, granted his request and adjourned the matter to November 24.
The charge dated November 12, 2025 stated that Maiyegun and others at large, sometimes in June, 2023 at Maiyegun family land, Maiyegun Village, Lekki Peninsula, with intent to defraud amongst themselves to commit felony to wit: forgery and conduct likely to cause breach of public peace and thereby committed an offence.
The defendant “with others at large, on same date, time and place in the aforementioned magisterial district did forge Deed of Assignment document registered as 5/5/2632 in a property located at Maiyegun Family Land, Maiyegun Village Lekki Peninsula, Lagos State belonging to Chief Cyril Okoye and thereby committed an offence.”
The defendant and others at large were also said to have conducted themselves in a manner likely to cause the breach of peace by for forging deed of assignment document registered as 5/5/2632 in a property located at Maiyegun Family Land, Maiyegun Village, Lekki Peninsula, Lagos State belonging to Chief Cyril Okoye and thereby committed an offence.
The offences are punishable under sections 411, 365(3)(h), 168(d) of Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015.
Maiyegun, in another charge number BG/G39/2024 was also alleged to have conspired with others at large, conducted themselves in manner likely to cause the breach of peace by illegally and forcefully entering into the property of one Chief Cyril Okoye and thereby committed an offence.
The defendant were alleged to have conducted themselves in manner likely to cause the breach of peace by illegally and forcefully entering into a plot of land belonging to one Chief Okoye Cyril and begin to carry out construction work on it with an intent to cause the breach of the peace.
They were in addition said to have without lawful authority did entered and occupy Chief Cyril Okoye land situated at Plot 20, Maiyegun land situated at Plot 20, Maiyegun Layout, Ologolo road, Maiyegun town in Eti-Osa Local Government area and thereby committed an offence.
The offences committed are contrary to section 411, 168(d), 81 and section 4(1) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State and punishable under section 4(5) of the property protection of Lagos state 2015.
