He argued that the decision to discharge the suspects was premature and interfered with the ongoing Coroner’s Inquest into the circumstances surrounding Mohbad’s death.
The Lagos State High Court in Ikeja has fixed July 2, 2025, for judgment in a legal application filed by Mr. Joseph Aloba, father of late singer Ilerioluwa Aloba, popularly known as Mohbad, seeking to overturn the legal advice of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that exonerated music promoter Sam Larry and artist Naira Marley from alleged involvement in his son’s death.
Justice Taiwo Olatokun set the date after hearing arguments from Wahab Shittu (SAN), counsel to Mr Aloba, and Joke Amachree, who represented the Lagos State Attorney General and the DPP — listed as respondents in the matter.
Mr. Aloba, acting on behalf of the Aloba family, challenged the DPP’s advice on grounds of denial of fair hearing.
He argued that the decision to discharge the suspects was premature and interfered with the ongoing Coroner’s Inquest into the circumstances surrounding Mohbad’s death.
According to Shittu, the DPP’s action effectively undermined the inquest, which has yet to conclude its investigation.
He noted that individuals mentioned and implicated during the inquest were discharged without the inquest’s final findings.
Responding in a counter affidavit filed on June 24, Ayinde Ibrahim, a legal officer in the DPP’s office, maintained that the suspects were not acquitted but merely discharged based on available evidence at the time.
He stated that their release followed the police’s submission of the case file to the DPP for legal review.
Ibrahim also clarified that officials from the DPP’s office participated in the coroner’s hearings, and the legal advice was issued following standard legal procedures.
“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.”
The respondents, while urging the court to dismiss Mr. Mohbad’s application in the interest of justice, outlined the procedure for obtaining the DPP’s legal advice and emphasized the DPP’s role in the process. They noted that the DPP had exclusive access to the criminal case file — information that neither the Coroner nor the applicant possessed — and concluded that the evidence revealed no direct or indirect link between Naira Marley, Sam Larry, Prima Boy, and Opere Babatunde to Mohbad’s death. This, they argued, was the basis for the DPP’s decision to exonerate them.
“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,” he stated.
He continues, “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.
However, 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 witnesses who testified at the Inquest into the Deceased’s death did not present any new, credible, or verifiable evidence—beyond what was already contained in the case file submitted by the Police to the 2nd Respondent—that directly or indirectly linked Mr. Abdulazeez Fashola (a.k.a. Naira Marley), Mr. Samson Balogun Eletu (a.k.a. Sam Larry), Owoduni Ibrahim (a.k.a. Prime Boy), or Opere Babatunde to 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.”
