Mohbad: Court Decides Application Challenging Naira Marley’s Release July 2
THECONSCIENCE NG reports that the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja has fixed July 2, 2025, for its judgment in the application by the father of late singer Mohbad, Mr Joseph Aloba, seeking permission to quash the DPP’s legal advice and court proceedings which freed Naira Marley and Sam Larry on allegations of being involved in Mohbad’s death.
Justice Taiwo Olatokun fixed the date after taking arguments for and against the application from counsel representing the applicant, Mr Aloba, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wahab Shittu and Joke Amachree who represented the respondents.
The applicant, Mr Joseph Aloba is suing for and on behalf of the Aloba family while the Attorney General of Lagos State and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) are listed as the respondents.
Senior Advocate, Wahab Shittu, cited a lack of fair hearing as one of the grounds for the application.
In his application, Mr Aloba had said the DPP’s legal advice freeing the duo of Naira Marley and Sam Larry pre-empted the proceedings of the Coroner’s inquest which is yet to conclude its inquiry and sitting into the cause of death of the late Mohbad.
He noted that vital suspects mentioned and implicated in the Coroner’s proceeding have been freed by the DPP’s legal advice.
In their counter affidavit, filed June 24, a legal assistant in the office of the DPP, Ayinde Ibrahim deposed that contrary to the submission of Mohbad’s father, the suspects who were released by the Legal Advice, were not acquitted but were only discharged.
The deponent said he was informed of the facts of the case by one Mr. Akinde Oluwaseun, a Chlef State Counsel in the Directorate of Public Prosecution which facts he believed.
In the document, Ibrahim states that, “the Respondents admit paragraphs 8 of the Affidavit-in-support of the Motion, only to the extent that its Officers participated at the hearing of the Inquest into the death of the late Oladimeji Aloba and also to the extent that upon conclusion of investigation by the Police Investigators into the death of the Deceased, the Investigators forwarded a duplicate case file to the Office of the 2nd Respondent (DPP) for the purpose of review and issuance of a Legal Advice”.
“Contrary to the deposition in Paragraph 4 and generally in the Applicant’s affidavits, the suspects who were released by the 2nd Respondent’s Legal Advice, were not acquitted but were only discharged.
“The Respondents denies the deposition in paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s Affidavit in support, as the Presiding Coroner is yet to pronounce a verdict which implicates the released suspects.”
While asking the court to dismiss Mr Mohbad’s application in the interest of justice, the respondents traced the process of obtaining the DPP’s legal advice, the role of the DPP, the kind of information – notably the criminal case file-which the DPP and neither the Coroner nor the applicant had access to and concluded that there was no fact disclosed which linked Naira Marley, Sam Larry Prima Boy and Opere Babatunde directly or remotely to the death Mohbad, a situation which formed the basis of the DPP’s advice freeing them.
He said, “Contrary to the deposition in Paragraph 8 of the Applicant’s affidavit, the said Oluwaseun Akinde Esq. from his experience as counsel knows as a fact that the Police is bound to send the duplicate case file to the Respondents in any case file in which a prima facie case of an offense triable by information is disclosed, such as the one under reference is disclosed.
“Further to the above, the Respondent states that at no time did the Presiding Coroner into the death of the Deceased issue any directive that mandated.
the respondents to inform it of the conclusion of the 2nd Respondent’s review of the duplicate case file which is the conclusion captured in the Legal Advice sought to be quashed by the Applicant.
“The 2nd Respondent was not instructed to halt its mandatory statutory review of the casefile nor ordered by the 1st Respondent, or the Presiding Coroner or the Chief Coroner for Lagos State to inform the Honourable Presiding Coroner whenever it was ready to issue the Legal Advice.
“In addition, the respondents state that it was the Police investigators who for the purpose of remand proceedings pending their conclusion of investigation presented the suspects before His Honour Mrs. A.O Olatunbosun, who subsequently remanded them while awaiting the Legal Advice of the Directorate of Public Prosecution, the DPP Advice.
“The Police Investigators were not instructed by His Honour Mrs A.O Olatunbosun, or the 1st Respondent nor were the Investigators under any statutory duty as part of their investigation to inform the Presiding Coroner that it was forwarding or had forwarded the Duplicate casefile to the Office of the Respondents.
“The Police investigators and the Respondents working on a prima facie criminal inference of the death of the Deceased are independent of the Presiding Coroner.
“The Respondents are answerable only to the Presiding Magistrate who ordered the remand pending the issuance of and to whom the Legal Advice was forwarded to when it was issued.
“The thrust of the intervention of the Presiding Coroner into the death of the Late lleriOluwa Oladimeji Aloba is different from the statutory duty of the Respondents as pertains to a police case file.
“While the Presiding Coroner’s mandate is to determine who is the deceased, when the Deceased died, where the Deceased died and how the Deceased died, the mandate of the Respondents particularly the 2nd Respondent is to determine if there were any prima facie criminal inferences disclosed against any of the suspects in the duplicate case file forwarded to it.
“The Respondents vehemently denies paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Affidavit-in-Support of the Motion, and states that the averments therein exist only in the realm of imagination of the Applicant, and thereby put him to the strictest proof of the allegations.
“The Respondents states further that neither the Presiding Coroner nor the Applicant have access to the criminal case file to ascertain and appreciate the legal basis that formed the conclusion reached by the Respondents in the Legal Advice.
“The Applicant did not personally conduct any or engage private investigators who investigated and found incriminating evidence that establishes the culpability of any of the individuals discharged by the 2nd Respondent’s Legal Advice for the death of his son.
“Upon a total legal review of the case file by the 2nd Respondent, there was no fact disclosed that linked Mr. Abdulazeez Fashola a.k.a Naira Marley, Mr.
Samson Balogun Eletu a.k.a Sam Larry and Owoduni Ibrahim a.k.a Prima Boy and Opere Babatunde directly or remotely to and for the death of the Deceased.
The Applicant and the other individuals who testified at the Inquest Hearing into the death of the Deceased did not provide any new, credible and verifiable facts distinct from what were stated in the casefile forwarded by the Police investigators to the 2nd Respondent which directly or remotely linked Mr.
Abdulazeez Fashola a.k.a Naira Marley, Mr. Samson Balogun Eletu a.k.a Sam Larry and Owoduni Ibrahim a.k.a Prima Boy and Opere Babatunde to the deathof the Late lleriOluwa Oladimeji Aloba.
“The Applicant in this application have not placed any material facts other than speculative statements and conjectures such that could have faulted the 2nd Respondent’s Legal Advice and it is in the interest of Justice to dismiss this Application against the Respondents.”
