By Segun Olaleye.
A Lagos State High Court on Tuesday heard the bail application of Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi and reserved ruling to a date to be communicated to the parties.
The application was argued before Justice A.T. Muyideen, who had earlier adjourned proceedings to November 2026 due to the annual court vacation. However, the court brought forward the hearing of the bail application following concerns over the deteriorating health of the defendant.
Counsel to Akanbi, Olalekan Ojo, SAN, urged the court to grant bail on medical grounds, stating that his client’s condition had worsened in custody. He also relied on a Certified True Copy of the police investigation report, which he said exonerates the defendant.
In a related application, Rukayat Owolabi, Esq., representing co-defendants Shafi Fatai and Yusuf Ismaila, asked the court to direct the Kirikiri Correctional Centre clinic to release the medical records of her clients.
The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the applications but reportedly did not challenge the documentary evidence presented. It’s surprising that Senior Advocates of Nigeria, Chief Femi Falana and Mrs. Abimbola Williams Akinjide, were present in court to watch brief for the complainants.
After hearing all parties, Justice Muyideen adjourned ruling on the bail application to a date to be communicated.
The substantive trial has been fixed for November 3, 2026 and four other dates in the same November.
The proceedings, however, have raised concerns about the handling of the case and whether procedural issues could unnecessarily delay the hearing of the bail application.
According to the account presented, the Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions had filed processes that were considered inappropriate or procedurally defective. The argument was that such deficiencies were allegedly deliberately made by the DPP to again foist anadjournment, further delaying the determination of the bail application.
It was however observed that the judge was determined to have the matter heard and, rather than allow the procedural issues to derail the proceedings, stood the matter down and directed the DPP to return to the registry to regularise his processes.
That intervention is significant.
Where a person's liberty is at stake, procedural compliance should not become an instrument for unnecessary delay. Parties appearing before the court have a responsibility to ensure that their processes are properly filed and in order so that the court can determine the substantive issues before it.
The proceedings have also generated questions over the presence of senior advocates representing the complainants. According to the account, Femi Falana and Mrs. Akinjide Williams were in court to watch brief.
Observers questioned the appropriateness of such representation during a bail application, arguing that bail is a matter directly connected to the fundamental right to personal liberty.
Whatever professional considerations may have informed the lawyers' appearance, the central issue should remain the application before the court and the evidence supporting or opposing it.
The more pressing concern is Akanbi's health.
The defence has argued that his condition has deteriorated in custody and that he requires consideration for bail on medical grounds. Where such an application is supported by credible medical evidence, it deserves careful consideration by the court.
The defence has also relied on a police investigation report which counsel said exonerates Akanbi. That claim remains a matter for judicial consideration and should not be treated as a final determination of the case outside the courtroom.
There are also broader claims that the case may have its roots in issues beyond the criminal allegations, including a land and citizenship dispute. Observers have questioned whether those underlying issues may be influencing the prosecution of Akanbi.
Such claims are serious and should be tested through evidence rather than assumption. The court is ultimately the proper forum to determine whether the criminal allegations are supported by admissible evidence. But it is also important to ensure that the clog in the justice system is not weaponised to incarcerate innocent person at the pleasure of the opponent.
What cannot be overlooked, however, is that Akanbi remains an accused person awaiting trial. The substantive trial has been fixed for November 3, 2026.
The principle of presumption of innocence requires that he be treated as innocent until proven guilty by a competent court. At the same time, the prosecution is entitled to present its case and oppose bail where it considers that the law permits it.
The responsibility of the court is to balance these competing interests fairly.
The Tuesday proceedings also demonstrated why an independent judiciary remains important. According to observers account, Justice Muyideen insisted that the bail matter proceed despite the procedural difficulties that emerged during the hearing and gave the affected parties an opportunity to regularise their processes.
The court has now heard the parties and reserved its ruling.
The decision on bail should ultimately rest on the evidence, the law and the circumstances of the case—not on public pressure, the prominence of the lawyers involved or competing narratives outside the courtroom.
For Akanbi, whose health is said to have deteriorated in custody, the ruling carries obvious personal significance. For the complainants, the criminal proceedings represent an equally serious demand for justice.
Both interests deserve protection.
The way forward, therefore, is not to prejudge the case but to ensure that the proceedings are conducted fairly, efficiently and transparently, without avoidable procedural delays.
Justice is not only about the eventual verdict. It is also about ensuring that every step leading to that verdict respects the rights of all parties.
Segun olaleye a public Affairs analyst writes from Ikeja
No comments:
Post a Comment