The Lagos High Court in Ikeja has scheduled July 2, 2025, to deliver its judgment on an application by Mr. Joseph Aloba, father of the late singer Mohbad, seeking to overturn the Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) legal advice and related court proceedings that cleared Naira Marley and Sam Larry of allegations connecting them to Mohbad’s death.
Justice Taiwo Olatokun set the date after hearing arguments from Wahab Shittu, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, representing the applicant, and Joke Amachree, counsel for the respondents.
The application, filed on behalf of the Aloba family, lists the Attorney General of Lagos State and the DPP as respondents. Wahab Shittu argued that a lack of fair hearing formed a key basis for the application.
In his submission, Mr. Aloba contended that the DPP’s legal advice, which exonerated Naira Marley and Sam Larry, prematurely dismissed allegations while the Coroner’s inquest into Mohbad’s death remains incomplete. He further asserted that crucial suspects identified during the Coroner’s proceedings had been released based on the DPP’s advice.
However, in a counter-affidavit filed on June 24, Ayinde Ibrahim, a legal assistant in the DPP’s office, stated that the suspects were not acquitted but merely discharged. The affidavit, based on information from Mr. Akinde Oluwaseun, a Chief State Counsel in the DPP’s Directorate, maintained that the legal advice was not intended to foreclose further inquiries or proceedings.
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 other individuals who testified at the Inquest Hearing regarding the death of the Deceased did not present any new, credible, or verifiable information beyond what was included in the case file submitted by Police investigators to the 2nd Respondent.
This information failed to establish any direct or indirect link between Mr. Abdulazeez Fashola (a.k.a. Naira Marley), Mr. Samson Balogun Eletu (a.k.a. Sam Larry), Owoduni Ibrahim (a.k.a. Prima Boy), and Opere Babatunde, and the death of the Late IleriOluwa 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.”