FROM COURT FILE TO FACEBOOK DISCUSSION”: HOW AJIRAN SUSPECT’S LAWYER AJULO, ALLEGEDLY GOT CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS NOW USED BY VDM

The trial of Ahmed Tajudeen Akanbi, a declared fugitive and principal suspect in the alleged murders of Sheriff Ishola Salami and Prince Ademola Akinloye, two princes of Ajiran Community in Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State, has become one of the state’s most closely watched criminal cases.

Beyond the courtroom, the proceedings have evolved into a fierce battle for public perception, fuelled by social media narratives, allegations of compromise and competing claims over the integrity of the police investigation.

The killings of Salami in February 2023 and Akinloye in August 2024 sent shockwaves through Ajiran Community near Chevron and reverberated across Lagos. The deaths sparked widespread outrage, prompting demands for justice from traditional authorities, community leaders, civil society organisations and residents.

With public attention fixed on the case, investigators came under intense pressure to identify those responsible and ensure a credible prosecution.

The investigation gathered momentum after fresh intelligence led to the arrest of Safiu Fatai, popularly known as Fabo, on January 24, 2026, and Yusuf Ismaila, also known as Bariga, on February 6, 2026.

Barely two weeks later, on February 20, 2026, the Lagos State Police Command declared Ahmed Tajudeen Akanbi, a 38-year-old businessman, wanted over the two killings. After months of intelligence gathering and cross-border surveillance, he was arrested by INTERPOL operatives in Cotonou, Republic of Benin, on April 15, 2026, and returned to Nigeria to face trial.

The prosecution of Akanbi and other suspects initially appeared straightforward. However, as proceedings advanced from the Chief Magistrate Court Ogba Lagos and later before the Lagos State High Court, the case became increasingly contentious, with community protests, allegations of judicial interference and public attacks on the credibility of the police investigation.

Like many high-profile homicide cases, emotions have remained high among families of the victims, supporters of the accused and members of the community. In that atmosphere, the police naturally became the focal institution for criticism from opposing interests.

Available records, however, indicate that the investigation followed a structured process. Police declared the principal suspect wanted after he allegedly fled the country, secured judicial authorisation where required, collaborated with INTERPOL to secure his arrest abroad and eventually returned him to Nigeria for prosecution.

The renewed investigation itself followed a formal petition dated January 7, 2026, submitted on behalf of the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family. Acting on the petition, the Inspector-General of Police directed a comprehensive review of the case on January 8, 2026.

The directive was implemented under the then Commissioner of Police in Lagos State, now Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Olohundare Moshood Jimoh. Investigators under one of the Tactical Teams at the State Police Headquarters Ikeja subsequently compiled their findings and forwarded recommendations to the Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP), the statutory body responsible for reviewing criminal case files before prosecution.

That process is significant because, once investigation reports reach the DPP, aspects of the case imperatively become accessible to lawyers and other authorised parties.

Consequently, sensitive information relating to the investigation existed outside police custody long before the case file was subsequently handled at the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Panti, for continued investigative processes. This distinction has become relevant amid recent claims suggesting that records were altered or found in the public domain after the transfer of the case to the State Criminal Investigation Department Panti.

Meanwhile, upon conclusion of the investigation at the State CID Panti and forwarding of their supplementary case file to the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Lagos State, one Mr Adedotun Ajulo, the lawyer to Hammed Akanbi the principal suspect, had frantically and desperately sought for the certified true copy of the case file including his client’s properties and other
critical evidence recovered in the course of the investigation. His unusual request made in writing was flatly turned down by DCP Dayo Akinbisehin in charge of the State CID Panti who referred the lawyer to the Commissioner of Police, Lagos State, Mr Fatai Tijani who also reportedly declined his request. The lawyer was further alleged to have thereafter
upon meeting brick wall from the Lagos State Police Command, was to apply for the bail of Hammed Akanbi before the High Court of Justice Ikeja, curiously attaching copies of the same case file to his pending bail application! It was alleged that he in fact applied for the classified documents from the DPP Lagos State through routine court process duly granted him by the court. This may imply that the principal suspect’s lawyer, Adedotun Ajulo surreptituosly had access to the classified court documents which social commentator, VDM
currently uses to desparage the country’s criminal justice system.

The controversy over judiary role on the matter further intensified after Akanbi reportedly developed serious health complications while in custody.

His deteriorating condition triggered widespread speculation, with social media platforms becoming flooded with claims that the investigation had been compromised.

Among the loudest voices was social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), who publicly accused senior police officers of undermining the investigation. He described the handling of the case as compromised and questioned the integrity of the process.

Much of the online commentary gradually shifted attention away from the two murder victims, creating a narrative that increasingly portrayed the principal suspect as the victim of institutional persecution rather than a defendant standing trial for serious criminal allegations.

Official investigation records tell a different story.
The renewed investigation reportedly produced eyewitness accounts describing the attacks, confessional statements from arrested suspects linking key actors and corroborative evidence suggesting financial sponsorship and orchestration of the alleged crimes.

The records also indicate that Akanbi’s arrest was backed by valid orders issued by both a Magistrate’s Court in Ikeja and the Federal High Court in Lagos before international cooperation through INTERPOL led to his apprehension in the Republic of Benin.

Police also publicly displayed exhibits reportedly recovered from the suspect after his arrest, including a 2017 Lexus LX570, an international passport and two mobile phones.

Another issue that has generated speculation is Akanbi’s continued stay in police custody despite an earlier court ruling directing that he be remanded in a correctional facility.

Findings indicate that after the court initially ordered his transfer to correctional authorities, his deteriorating medical condition prompted a subsequent judicial order in June directing that he remain in police custody while receiving treatment at a federal medical facility under police supervision until he was medically fit to continue trial. The substantive hearing remains scheduled for November.

The development nevertheless fuelled rumours, with many questioning whether the suspect was being secretly shielded by the police.
Information available from court proceedings indicates otherwise. The arrangement reportedly followed a judicial directive based on medical considerations rather than any administrative decision by the police.

Legal observers note that compliance with such court orders is mandatory. Once a court directs that a defendant receive medical treatment under specified custody arrangements, law enforcement agencies are bound to comply. The right of an accused person to receive medical care does not extinguish criminal liability nor interrupt the prosecution process.

Civil society organisations have also entered the debate. The Centre for Human and Socio-Economic Rights (CHSR) and the South West Youth Alliance (SWYA), after reviewing aspects of the case, rejected allegations that investigators manipulated evidence or made suspects’ statements disappear.

According to the groups, available investigation records did not support claims that statements made by Safiu Fatai and Yusuf Ismaila were removed from the case file. They also maintained that Akanbi was declared wanted only after appropriate judicial authorisation had been obtained.

The organisations further noted that investigation records reflected statements from multiple witnesses, including the widow of one of the deceased victims.

SWYA equally stated that its independent findings indicated that statements from key suspects had been obtained before Akanbi’s arrest, arguing that attempts to distort the investigative process could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Both organisations urged that the criminal trial be allowed to proceed without intimidation, misinformation or undue external influence, insisting that justice must ultimately be determined by the courts on the strength of admissible evidence rather than by social media campaigns.

As proceedings continue, the Ajiran double murder case illustrates the growing tension between criminal justice administration and trial by social media. While public scrutiny remains an essential component of accountability, the integrity of criminal investigations and judicial proceedings ultimately depends on verifiable evidence, due process and compliance with court orders rather than competing online narratives.