Court docket Fixes July 2 To Rule On Late Singer, Mohbad Father’s Bid To Indict Naira Marley, Sam Larry

He argued that the choice to discharge the suspects was untimely and interfered with the continuing Coroner’s Inquest into the circumstances surrounding Mohbad’s demise.

The Lagos State Excessive Court docket in Ikeja has fastened July 2, 2025, for judgment in a authorized software filed by Mr. Joseph Aloba, father of late singer Ilerioluwa Aloba, popularly often known as Mohbad, looking for to overturn the authorized recommendation of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that exonerated music promoter Sam Larry and artist Naira Marley from alleged involvement in his son’s demise.

Justice Taiwo Olatokun set the date after listening to arguments from Wahab Shittu (SAN), counsel to Mr Aloba, and Joke Amachree, who represented the Lagos State Lawyer Basic and the DPP — listed as respondents within the matter.

Mr. Aloba, performing on behalf of the Aloba household, challenged the DPP’s recommendation on grounds of denial of truthful listening to.

He argued that the choice to discharge the suspects was untimely and interfered with the continuing Coroner’s Inquest into the circumstances surrounding Mohbad’s demise.

In accordance with Shittu, the DPP’s motion successfully undermined the inquest, which has but to conclude its investigation.

He famous that people talked about and implicated through the inquest had been discharged with out the inquest’s closing findings.

Responding in a counter affidavit filed on June 24, Ayinde Ibrahim, a authorized officer within the DPP’s workplace, maintained that the suspects weren’t acquitted however merely discharged based mostly on accessible proof on the time.

He acknowledged that their launch adopted the police’s submission of the case file to the DPP for authorized evaluate.

Ibrahim additionally clarified that officers from the DPP’s workplace participated within the coroner’s hearings, and the authorized recommendation was issued following customary authorized procedures.

“Opposite to the deposition in Paragraph 4 and customarily within the Applicant’s affidavits, the suspects who had been launched by the 2nd Respondent’s Authorized Recommendation, weren’t acquitted however had been solely discharged.

“The Respondents denies the deposition in paragraph 7 of the Applicant’s Affidavit in help, because the Presiding Coroner is but to pronounce a verdict which implicates the launched suspects.”

The respondents, whereas urging the courtroom to dismiss Mr. Mohbad’s software within the curiosity of justice, outlined the process for acquiring the DPP’s authorized recommendation and emphasised the DPP’s position within the course of. They famous that the DPP had unique entry to the felony case file — info that neither the Coroner nor the applicant possessed — and concluded that the proof revealed no direct or oblique hyperlink between Naira Marley, Sam Larry, Prima Boy, and Opere Babatunde to Mohbad’s demise. This, they argued, was the idea for the DPP’s choice to exonerate them.

“Opposite to the deposition in Paragraph 8 of the Applicant’s affidavit, the stated Oluwaseun Akinde Esq. from his expertise as counsel is aware of as a indisputable fact that the Police is certain to ship the duplicate case file to the Respondents in any case file wherein a prima facie case of an offense triable by info is disclosed, such because the one below reference is disclosed.

“Additional to the above, the Respondent states that at no time did the Presiding Coroner into the demise of the Deceased situation any directive that mandated

the respondents to tell it of the conclusion of the 2nd Respondent’s evaluate of the duplicate case file which is the conclusion captured within the Authorized Recommendation sought to be quashed by the Applicant.

“The 2nd Respondent was not instructed to halt its necessary statutory evaluate of the casefile nor ordered by the first Respondent, or the Presiding Coroner or the Chief Coroner for Lagos State to tell the Honourable Presiding Coroner each time it was able to situation the Authorized Recommendation.

“As well as, the respondents state that it was the Police investigators who for the aim of remand proceedings pending their conclusion of investigation offered the suspects earlier than His Honour Mrs. A.O Olatunbosun, who subsequently remanded them whereas awaiting the Authorized Recommendation of the Directorate of Public Prosecution, the DPP Recommendation,” he acknowledged.

He continues, “The Police Investigators weren’t instructed by His Honour Mrs A.O Olatunbosun, or the first Respondent nor had been the Investigators below any statutory obligation as a part of their investigation to tell the Presiding Coroner that it was forwarding or had forwarded the Duplicate casefile to the Workplace of the Respondents.

“The Police investigators and the Respondents engaged on a prima facie felony inference of the demise of the Deceased are unbiased of the Presiding Coroner.

“The Respondents are answerable solely to the Presiding Justice of the Peace who ordered the remand pending the issuance of and to whom the Authorized Recommendation was forwarded to when it was issued.

“The thrust of the intervention of the Presiding Coroner into the demise of the Late lleriOluwa Oladimeji Aloba is completely different from the statutory obligation of the Respondents as pertains to a police case file.

“Whereas the Presiding Coroner’s mandate is to find out who’s the deceased, when the Deceased died, the place the Deceased died and the way the Deceased died, the mandate of the Respondents notably the 2nd Respondent is to find out if there have been any prima facie felony inferences disclosed towards any of the suspects within the duplicate case file forwarded to it.

“The Respondents vehemently denies paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Affidavit-in-Assist of the Movement, and states that the averments therein exist solely within the realm of creativeness of the Applicant, and thereby put him to the strictest proof of the allegations.

The Respondents states additional that neither the Presiding Coroner nor the Applicant have entry to the felony case file to establish and recognize the authorized foundation that shaped the conclusion reached by the Respondents within the Authorized Recommendation.

Nonetheless, the Applicant didn’t personally conduct any or interact non-public investigators who investigated and located incriminating proof that establishes the culpability of any of the people discharged by the 2nd Respondent’s Authorized Recommendation for the demise of his son.

“Upon a complete authorized evaluate of the case file by the 2nd Respondent, there was no reality disclosed that linked Mr. Abdulazeez Fashola a.okay.a Naira Marley, Mr.

Samson Balogun Eletu a.okay.a Sam Larry and Owoduni Ibrahim a.okay.a Prima Boy and Opere Babatunde instantly or remotely to and for the demise of the Deceased.

The Applicant and different witnesses who testified on the Inquest into the Deceased’s demise didn’t current any new, credible, or verifiable proof—past what was already contained within the case file submitted by the Police to the 2nd Respondent—that instantly or not directly linked Mr. Abdulazeez Fashola (a.okay.a. Naira Marley), Mr. Samson Balogun Eletu (a.okay.a. Sam Larry), Owoduni Ibrahim (a.okay.a. Prime Boy), or Opere Babatunde to the demise of the Late Ilerioluwa Oladimeji Aloba.

“The Applicant on this software haven’t positioned any materials information apart from speculative statements and conjectures such that might have faulted the 2nd Respondent’s Authorized Recommendation and it’s within the curiosity of Justice to dismiss this Software towards the Respondents.”