Late singer, Mohbad.
By Advocatenewsng.com
A Lagos High Court, Ikeja has granted Joseph Aloba, the father of the late singer Ilerioluwa Aloba, popularly known as Mohbad, permission to challenging the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP)’s legal advice which freed Abdulazeez Fashola (alias Naira Marley) and two others over allegations of his son’s death.
Justice Taiwo Olatokun also granted Mr. Aloba permission to serve the motion on notice for judicial review on the Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Lawal Pedro, Senior Advocate of Nigeria.
He is asking the court to order a judicial review to quash the DPP’s legal advice and the order of Magistrate Ejiro Kubenje which discharged and acquitted four suspects, Abdulazeez Fashola (alias Naira Marley), Samson Balogun Eletu (A.K.A. Sam Larry), Owoduni Ibrahim (A.K.A. Prime Boy), and Pere Babatunde.
Justice Taiwo Olatokun granted the motion ex parte for the review after listening to the counsel representing Mohbad’s father, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Wahab Shittu.
Hearing in the case has been fixed for June 17.
Joseph Aloba, the father of the late singer, Ilerioluwa Aloba, popularly known as Mohbad, has urged a Lagos State High Court at Ikeja to nullify the legal advice, decisions, and recommendations made by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) issued on police investigation into the murder of his son.
Aloba is asking the court to declare Magistrate Ejiro Kubenje’s decision to discharge and acquit four suspects, Abdulazeez Fashola (alias Naira Marley), Samson Balogun Eletu (A.K.A. Sam Larry), Owoduni Ibrahim (A.K.A. Prime Boy), and Pere Babatunde, unlawful.
The applicant suing for himself and on behalf of the Aloba family joined the Lagos State Attorney General, Lawal Pedro (SAN), and the Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr Babajide Martins, as respondents in the suit marked ID/6197MJR/2025.
Aloba, through his lawyer, Dr. Shittu (SAN), based his suit on three main grounds, including a claim that he was denied a fair hearing under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria as amended.
He also argued that the DPP’s legal advice pre-empts the ongoing Coroner’s inquest proceedings and that key suspects mentioned in those proceedings have allegedly been freed due to the DPP’s recommendations.
In an 18-paragraph affidavit attached to the suit, the applicant averred that the death of his son on September 11, 2023, was both unnatural and suspicious.
He stated that this prompted him to petition for an inquest into the circumstances surrounding Mohbad’s death and that the inquest was referred to the Coroner’s court under suit No: COR/IKD/10/2023, where proceedings commenced on September 29, 2023, and have not yet been concluded.
Aloba alleged that, while the Coroner’s proceedings are still ongoing, on February 26, 2025, Magistrate Ejiro Kubenhe of the Yaba Magistrate Court discharged and acquitted the four suspects based on an undated legal advice from the respondents.
He further maintained that these suspects, who have been discharged and acquitted, were involved in the Coroner’s proceedings and have been summoned but have yet to appear to provide evidence regarding their roles in the death of the deceased.
The applicant claimed that the police, through ASP Mohammed Yusuf from the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), and the respondents, represented by their senior counsel, George, participated in the Coroner’s proceedings.
He stated that the police submitted their investigation findings to the respondents without informing the Coroner’s court. Despite the Coroner’s ongoing inquest, the respondents issued legal advice that led to the release of the prime suspects.
Aloba contends that the respondents’ actions undermined the Coroner’s authority, thereby obstructing justice in the investigation.
The applicant submitted that the respondents’ failure to allow the Coroner to conclude the proceedings and their issuance of legal advice preempts the inquest’s outcome, lacks jurisdiction, and is, therefore, null and void.
Aloba also argued that this interference undermines the integrity of the inquest and potentially compromises its outcome and that he needs the court’s intervention to ensure justice is served regarding his son’s death.
