Fresh questions have been raised over the repeated administrative recall of the case file in the ongoing criminal proceedings involving Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi and two other defendants in connection with the alleged killings of two residents of Ajiran, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State.
The concerns follow the latest reported recall of the case file to the Office of the Honourable Chief Judge of Lagos State, Hon. Justice Kazeem Olarewaju Alogba, against the background of petitions and previous administrative interventions concerning the substantive matter before Hon. Justice A. T. Muyideen.
BACKGROUND TO THE PETITIONS
According to information provided by the petitioning organisation, the Centre for Citizens’ Rights Protection submitted a petition dated 29 June 2026, alleging bias and lack of impartiality against Hon. Justice A. T. Muyideen and requesting that the case be reassigned to another judge.
Following the petition, the Chief Judge reportedly called for the case file and directed that the allegations be investigated.
The organisation was subsequently informed that the allegations had been investigated and that Justice Muyideen had been exonerated from the allegations raised against him. The initial petition therefore did not result in the reassignment of the case.
However, another petition was reportedly submitted by the same organisation on 3 August 2026, seeking substantially similar relief, including the removal of Justice Muyideen from the matter and the reassignment of the case to another judge. The petition was reportedly acknowledged on the same day.
According to the information available, the case file had also reportedly been called for on four separate occasions before the latest development on 18 September 2026.
The repeated recall of a case file from a court already seized of the substantive proceedings and pending applications has consequently generated questions about the circumstances and administrative basis for the repeated interventions.
These concerns have become more pronounced because an earlier petition containing allegations against the same judge had reportedly already been investigated with the judge subsequently cleared of the allegations.
LATEST DEVELOPMENT
Before the matter was expected to proceed, the Registrar reportedly informed those present that the case would no longer go on as scheduled.
It was explained that the Chief Judge had called for the case file following the petition dated 3 August 2026.
The file was consequently returned to the Office of the Chief Registrar for onward transmission to the Chief Judge.
This latest development has prompted further questions regarding the timing, circumstances and administrative basis for the recall of the case file.
It is important to emphasise that allegations contained in petitions against a judicial officer are matters that require proper investigation and should not be treated as established facts unless and until determined through the appropriate process.
QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE REPEATED RECALLS
The central question being raised is straightforward:
Why has the case file reportedly been called for on four separate occasions?
The repeated recalls have attracted public attention because the substantive criminal proceedings are already before a duly assigned judge.
At an earlier stage, counsel representing one of the defendants reportedly submitted a petition concerning the trial judge. The matter was considered through the appropriate administrative process.
The Centre for Citizens Rights Protection subsequently submitted its petition of 29 June 2026, raising concerns about the impartiality of the trial judge. That petition was reportedly investigated, following which the judge was said to have been exonerated from the allegations.
Against this background, the reported fourth recall of the case file has generated further questions.
If the 3 August 2026 petition had already been submitted, why was the file recalled at this particular stage?
Was there any new development that necessitated the latest administrative intervention?
What specific circumstances informed the decision to call for the file again?
What administrative procedure governs the repeated recall of a case file that is already before a duly assigned judge?
These are legitimate questions that can be addressed through the appropriate administrative and judicial channels.
WHERE DOES THE INTEREST OF THE JUDICIARY LIE?
This matter extends beyond the defendants and the petitioning parties.
The allegations concern the deaths of two members of the Ajiran community, and the case has attracted significant public attention. Public reports identify the victims as Sheriff Ishola Salami, who was reportedly killed in April 2023, and Prince Kazeem Ademola Akinloye, who was reportedly killed in August 2024.
Their deaths have left families devastated, including children, wives, parents, siblings and other relatives who continue to await the outcome of the judicial process.
The concern, therefore, should not be about securing a predetermined outcome for any party. Rather, the central demand should be that the judicial process be allowed to proceed fairly, transparently and strictly in accordance with the law.
The defendants are entitled to the full protection of their constitutional and legal rights, while the families of the deceased are equally entitled to justice through due process.
Both principles must be protected.
THE IMPORTANCE OF JUDICIAL INTEGRITY
The judiciary remains a critical institution in the administration of justice. For that reason, administrative decisions affecting an ongoing criminal proceeding should be handled in a manner capable of preserving public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judicial process.
The public has already witnessed several legal developments surrounding the Akanbi case.
In August 2026, the Lagos State High Court reportedly ordered the police to retract a “wanted” notice issued against Akanbi and issue a public apology following a fundamental-rights action. The police subsequently appealed the judgment.
There have also been proceedings concerning bail applications, with the courts directing that applications relating to the substantive matter be presented before the appropriate trial judge.
These developments underscore the importance of allowing the judicial process to operate strictly within the law and ensuring that all administrative interventions are properly grounded in established procedures.
A PLEA FOR THE FAMILIES AFFECTED
Our appeal is also directed towards the families affected by the deaths at the centre of this case.
There are fatherless children.
There are widows and single mothers.
There are families who have lost sons, brothers and loved ones.
They deserve justice, but justice must be achieved through a fair and lawful process.
No person should be convicted without a fair trial, and no defendant should be deprived of his constitutional and legal rights.
At the same time, the families of the deceased should not be left with the impression that the pursuit of justice is being unnecessarily delayed or complicated by repeated administrative interventions.
The interests of all parties can only be properly protected when the judicial process is allowed to proceed transparently and in accordance with the law.
OUR QUESTIONS
Against this background, we respectfully ask:
1. Why has the case file reportedly been called for on four separate occasions?
2. What specific reason necessitated the latest recall of the file?
3. Why was the file recalled at this particular stage when the 3 August 2026 petition had reportedly been submitted more than a month earlier?
4. Was there any new development that necessitated the latest administrative intervention?
5. What administrative procedure governs the repeated recall of a case file already before a duly assigned judge?
6. What safeguards are in place to ensure that administrative interventions do not unnecessarily delay the substantive proceedings?
7. How can the process be handled in a manner that preserves public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary?
These questions are not an invitation to prejudge the case or to determine the guilt or innocence of any defendant.
They are a call for transparency regarding the administrative handling of a matter that has attracted considerable public attention.
The public deserves confidence that the case is being handled according to the law.
The families of the deceased deserve justice through due process.
The defendants deserve the full protection of their constitutional rights.
And the judiciary deserves to retain public confidence by ensuring that every administrative decision concerning a pending criminal proceeding is properly grounded, transparent and capable of withstanding legitimate public scrutiny.
Let the truth emerge through due process. Let the law take its course. And let justice be seen to be done.
No comments:
Post a Comment