An Ogun State businessman, Azeez Ashiru, has renewed his appeal to the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwasina Ogungbade, SAN, to review the Directorate of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) legal advice concerning allegations of assault, robbery, intimidation and the use of dangerous weapons against members of his family.
Ashiru, through his lawyer, Ayodeji Ifonlaja, also called on the Ministry of Justice to investigate allegations that several suspects involved in the case had violated their bail conditions and to provide a formal response to his earlier petition seeking a review of the criminal charges.
The businessman maintained that the existence of a land dispute between the parties should not prevent the authorities from independently investigating and prosecuting any criminal offences disclosed by the evidence.
The renewed demand followed an earlier complaint made public on September 28, 2026, in which Ashiru protested the alleged removal of several charges initially recommended by the police following their investigation into the incident.
In his latest petition, Ifonlaja expressed concern that the case had not received what his client considered an adequate prosecutorial response despite repeated representations to the relevant authorities.
The lawyer disclosed that a fundamental rights enforcement suit instituted by the suspects before the Ogun State High Court, Sagamu Judicial Division, had been dismissed.
The suit, marked HCS/326/2025, was dismissed on September 30, 2026, by Justice O. S. Oloyede.
According to Ifonlaja, the dismissal was relevant to the circumstances surrounding the dispute but did not remove the need for the prosecution authorities to independently assess the criminal allegations against the suspects.
He maintained that the appropriate charges should be determined by the evidence contained in the police case file and the applicable criminal laws.
The lawyer also challenged the position earlier attributed to the Attorney-General that the incident arose from a land dispute and did not justify an armed robbery charge.
Ifonlaja argued that the existence of a civil dispute over land could not, by itself, excuse acts of violence or prevent the prosecution of criminal offences where sufficient evidence existed.
“The existence of a land dispute does not excuse, justify or extinguish any criminal offence disclosed by the evidence,” the petition stated.
“Allegations of violence, assault, robbery, intimidation and the use of dangerous weapons must be independently assessed based on the police case file and the applicable law.”
The lawyer acknowledged that the Attorney-General possesses prosecutorial discretion in determining whether criminal proceedings should be instituted and the charges that should be preferred.
However, he insisted that the exercise of such discretion must be guided by the evidence, applicable laws and the interests of justice.
According to him, the mere fact that the parties were involved in a land dispute should not automatically exclude the possibility that criminal offences were committed during the disagreement.
“Where the evidence is capable of disclosing armed robbery or another criminal offence, the appropriate decision should be made in accordance with the law and the interests of justice,” Ifonlaja stated.
He urged the Attorney-General to reconsider the legal advice issued by the DPP on February 24, 2026, and determine whether the available evidence justified additional or different criminal charges.
The lawyer maintained that the review should examine the allegations of assault, robbery, intimidation and the alleged use of dangerous weapons without allowing the underlying land dispute to determine the outcome of the criminal investigation.
He also referred to a previous criminal matter involving Ashiru in 2024, which he identified as Commissioner of Police v. Abdulmiyu Adams & Another.
The earlier matter was referenced in the petition under DPP Reference No. PPD/AR/04/2024/001/49, dated June 28, 2024.
According to Ifonlaja, Ashiru had complained that suspects in the earlier case made confessional statements but were subsequently released without prosecution.
The lawyer said his client feared that a similar situation could arise in the current matter if the authorities failed to take appropriate steps.
However, the allegations concerning the earlier case remain the account presented by Ashiru through his counsel and do not, by themselves, establish that the prosecuting authorities acted unlawfully.
Ifonlaja further alleged that all but one of the suspects involved in the current case had jumped bail.
He called on the Ministry of Justice to verify the suspects’ bail status and determine whether any action was necessary to secure their attendance or ensure compliance with applicable legal requirements.
“We request that their status and any appropriate legal steps be verified and addressed in accordance with the law,” the petition read.
The lawyer did not identify the suspects alleged to have jumped bail in the account made available, nor was there independent confirmation of their present bail status.
Nevertheless, he maintained that the allegations required the attention of the prosecuting authorities, particularly because of the seriousness of the offences his client claimed had been committed.
Ifonlaja consequently asked the Attorney-General to undertake a comprehensive review of the DPP’s legal advice dated February 24, 2026.
He specifically requested that the ministry examine the police case file, determine the offences supported by the available evidence and take any prosecutorial action considered appropriate under the law.
The lawyer also demanded a formal response to the petition submitted on April 16, 2026, as well as subsequent reminders forwarded to the authorities.
According to him, the prolonged absence of a substantive response had caused his client considerable distress and weakened his confidence in the administration of criminal justice.
“Our client is heartbroken by the prolonged silence of the relevant authorities despite his repeated efforts to seek justice through lawful means,” the petition stated.
Ifonlaja, however, emphasised that Ashiru was not demanding the automatic conviction of the suspects or seeking to interfere with their constitutional right to a fair hearing.
Rather, he said the businessman wanted the relevant authorities to make an impartial decision based on the evidence gathered during the investigation.
“He is not asking for the suspects to be convicted without trial; he seeks only a fair, impartial and evidence-based prosecutorial decision,” the lawyer stated.
The petition stressed that the determination of criminal liability remained the responsibility of a competent court following due process.
It also acknowledged that the Attorney-General retained the constitutional authority to assess the evidence and decide whether prosecution was justified.
However, Ifonlaja maintained that the exercise of that authority should be transparent and consistent with the law.
He argued that a review of the matter would provide an opportunity for the Ministry of Justice to address his client’s concerns and clarify the legal basis for the prosecutorial decisions already taken.
The lawyer therefore urged Ogungbade to intervene personally by ensuring that the complaints received appropriate consideration.
He maintained that a fair review would help restore Ashiru’s confidence in the criminal justice system, irrespective of whether the eventual decision resulted in additional charges.
Reacting to the renewed allegations, the Ogun State Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Oluwasina Ogungbade, SAN, said he was unaware of the latest petition.
Ogungbade, however, promised to revert after being contacted for his response.
The Attorney-General also expressed concern about what he described as the abuse of the criminal justice system, linking such practices to the increasing number of awaiting-trial inmates in correctional facilities.
“This abuse of the system is partly why correctional centres are overflowing with awaiting-trial inmates. As a lawyer, he knows the position of the law on this matter,” Ogungbade said.
His response reflected concerns about the use of criminal proceedings in disputes that may also involve civil claims.
However, the Attorney-General did not provide a detailed response to the specific allegations concerning the suspects’ bail status or the request for a review of the February 24 legal advice in the account made available.
The dispute raises questions about the relationship between civil litigation and criminal prosecution, particularly where allegations of violence arise from disagreements over property.
Although a land dispute may give rise to civil proceedings, the existence of such a dispute does not automatically prevent criminal investigation where the evidence discloses an offence.
Similarly, allegations of assault, robbery or the use of dangerous weapons do not automatically establish criminal liability without sufficient evidence and judicial determination.
Under the constitutional framework governing criminal prosecution, the Attorney-General has the authority to institute, take over or discontinue criminal proceedings within the limits prescribed by law.
The exercise of that authority must also take account of the public interest, the interests of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.
For Ashiru, the immediate concern remains whether the DPP’s legal advice adequately addressed the allegations made against the suspects and whether the Ministry of Justice will respond to his outstanding petition.
The businessman, through his counsel, maintained that his request was not intended to secure a predetermined outcome but to ensure that the criminal allegations received proper consideration.
He also urged the authorities to verify the alleged bail violations and take any necessary action in accordance with the law.
As of the latest account, the Attorney-General had acknowledged the inquiry but had not announced whether the legal advice would be reviewed.
The allegations against the suspects remain unproven, and their constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence, must be respected.
Ashiru’s renewed petition therefore places the question of prosecutorial review before the Ogun State Ministry of Justice as he continues to seek what he describes as a fair and evidence-based resolution of the matter.
Post Title: “My Client Is Heartbroken By The Prolonged Silence Of Authorities” — Lawyer Petitions Ogun Attorney-General Over Alleged Assault, Robbery By Naijaonpoint.