Late Mohbad’s Father Asks Court To Quash Advice Freeing Naira Marley, Sam Larry, 2 others

Ilerioluwa Aloba, the late singer’s father, is suing the Lagos High Court in Ikeja to request a judicial review of the legal advice provided by the State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) office.

The High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019 Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution grant the court the right to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, so the application was filed on March 12th.

Mohbad’s father is suing the DPP’s legal advice in relation to the murder of his son through his lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Wahab Shittu.

Mr. Aloba joined the DPP and the Attorney General of Lagos as respondents in the lawsuit, both of whom are suing for themselves and on behalf of the Aloba family.

The applicant wants the court to reject the DPP’s legal advice because there isn’t a fair hearing, the coroner’s inquest is still in session, and because the important suspects named and implicated in the Coroner’s proceedings have been spared by the DPP.

Mohbad’s father claims in documents that the court has been properly informed of the facts in the case in support of the application.

He claims that ILERIOLUWA OLADIMEJI ALOBA, aka MOHBAD, died on September 11, 2025, as a result of his petitions and demands for an inquest into the cause of his death.

The coroner’s court, which commenced its session on September 23, 2023, and is yet to conclude its session, was directed to the applicant’s request to determine the circumstances leading to death.

According to the Coroner’s Court, Magistrate Ejiro Kubenje, who was sitting at the Yaba Magistrate Court on February 26, 2025, discharged and acquitted the four main suspects in the controversy surrounding the late Mohbad’s death, Abdul Azeez Fashola aka Naira Marley, Samson Balogun Eletu aka Sam Larry, Owodunni Ibrahim aka Prime Boy, and Oper

“When the suspects were being released and found not guilty by the court,” the applicants claimed.

That those who were discharged and found guilty by the respondents in accordance with their legal advice have been mentioned, implicated, summoned, and have not yet made their appearances and evidence of their contribution to the late Mohbad’s death.

“That the Police, through one ASP Mohammed Yusuf tasked with the Homicide Section, State CID Panti, and the respondents through their Senior Counsel, Mr. George, took part in the coroner’s proceedings,” the police claim. The State CID Panti did not inform the Coroner’s Court of the findings of their investigation, and the respondents did so without the coroner’s court’s approval. However, both offices, particularly the respondents, continued to issue legal counsel, leading to the Magistrate Court’s decision to discharge and acquit the prime suspects in the contentious death of late Mohbad.

That I am aware that the respondents’ actions or omissions violate the Coroner’s Court in the performance of their statutory duties.

“I am aware that the respondents’ refusal to allow the Coroner to conclude their case and to issue the legal advice pre-empts the Coroner’s decision, is done without jurisdiction, and is null and void,” I assert.

“That I know as a fact that the respondents’ conduct in giving legal advice in relation to the subject of the inquiry is being conducted amounts to obstructing and interfering with the coroner’s investigation and potentially influencing the outcome.”

That I am aware that the respondents’ legal advice, which constitutes an insult to the Coroner’s exclusive jurisdiction, overreacheth into the coroner’s authority to conduct inquests into suspicious and unnatural deaths, which are expected to proceed smoothly without external interference.

“That I know as a fact that the respondents’ actions, aside from being pre-emptive of the Coroner’s proceedings, threaten the integrity of the inquest and potentially trample the results of the Coroner’s investigation.”

The respondents’ actions or omissions, while cognizant that the coroner’s inquest is still pending, overreach the results of the inquest, which is improper.

“That the applicant needs this Honorable Court’s assistance to bring about justice for his son’s death.” Otherwise, allowing the respondents’ legal advice to go into effect would automatically end the Coroner’s Court’s seriousness and its proceedings.

“That the respondents won’t suffer if we grant this application.”

Source: Channels TV