By Akinwole Opeyemi

The recent decision of the General Investigation Section (GIS) of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Alagbon, to issue a fresh report on a matter already before the Lagos High Court raises serious concerns about respect for the rule of law and judicial authority. In my view, once a case has been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction, any parallel investigation by another arm of the police not only risks confusing the issues but also undermines the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

The controversy came to public attention after a publication in The Punch of August 23, 2025, written by Imoleayo Oyedeyi, which suggested contradictions in the original investigation carried out by the Special Enquiry Bureau (SEB) of the Force CID. That SEB investigation led to a five-count charge, marked LD/23611C/2024, against Ademola Owolabi, Adebayo Akeju, and Alex Ochonogor before Justice Serifat Sonaike of the Lagos High Court.

In my assessment, the GIS report dated June 13, 2025, and signed by Deputy Commissioner of Police Muhammed Dahiru, has generated more questions than answers.

The Property in Question

The dispute centres on a property in Lekki originally allocated to Major Hamza Al-Mustapha (rtd.), former Chief Security Officer to late Head of State, General Sani Abacha. From available records, Al-Mustapha sold the property to Continental Properties Limited, which in turn transferred it to USP Limited. USP Limited subsequently sold it to Dr. Eze Obidigwe on May 12, 2005.

Dr. Obidigwe developed the land by building a bungalow and was in possession for about 10 years until the building was demolished. It is on this same property that later transactions arose, sparking disputes and claims of ownership.

The SEB investigation had concluded that there was a valid chain of title from Al-Mustapha through to Dr. Obidigwe. That conclusion formed the basis of the criminal charges now before the court. However, the GIS report has been presented as contradicting that position.

Why the GIS Report is Troubling

From my review of the report, the first troubling aspect is that it appeared to revisit issues already before the court. Once charges are filed, the focus should shift to trial, where evidence is tested. By issuing a new investigation on the same facts, the GIS created the impression of running a parallel trial outside the courtroom.

Secondly, the report, in my view, did not consider certain critical witnesses whose input would have been vital. For instance, Dr. Obidigwe, who still holds the original documents, was not invited. Major Al-Mustapha, whose name appeared in subsequent disputed transactions despite his earlier sale, was not interrogated. Neither were contractors or engineers who handled the construction and demolition of the bungalow. It is difficult to see how a balanced report could emerge without these voices.

Documentary Weaknesses

Another concern is the reliance on documents whose authenticity does not appear to have been confirmed with the proper authorities. The GIS report referenced a demolition notice said to have been issued by the Lagos State Ministry of Lands, yet there is no indication that the ministry itself was contacted to verify the notice.

The report also mentioned a Memorandum of Loss and an Affidavit of Loss of the original Certificate of Occupancy. In my view, due diligence required that these documents be cross-checked with the Lagos State Ministry of Justice before any weight was attached to them.

Even the timeline raises questions. A government publication from 2009 was cited as justification for demolition, but the bungalow on the property was not built until 2014. How can a 2009 notice be applied to a structure that did not exist until five years later?

In addition, I note that in 2016, a court issued an order directing parties to maintain the status quo on the property. Despite that, construction went on until completion. Yet the GIS report appeared silent on this crucial fact.

Lawyers as Defendants

It is particularly noteworthy that two of the defendants in this case are lawyers. In my opinion, as officers of the court, lawyers should be the first to insist that justice be pursued strictly through judicial channels. If indeed the SEB investigation was flawed, the courtroom is the place to test that claim.

A re-investigation outside of court proceedings gives the impression of seeking favourable reports rather than facing the charges. If there are weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the defence is fully entitled to exploit those weaknesses during trial. That is the proper process.

The Question of Ownership

From the documents available, the ownership chain of the property seems straightforward: Al-Mustapha to Continental Properties Limited, to USP Limited, and finally to Dr. Obidigwe. The bungalow was built thereafter and occupied peacefully for about a decade.

Given this record, I find it inconsistent that later transactions would still be anchored on Al-Mustapha’s name after he had sold the property years earlier. How can someone be said to have sold or instructed a sale of property he no longer owns? This is a question that goes to the root of the case.

The Larger Implications

The implications of the GIS report extend beyond this particular property. If investigative bodies can re-open matters already before the courts, then we risk setting a precedent where criminal defendants shop for alternative police reports even after charges are filed. That, in my view, undermines the separation of powers and weakens the authority of the judiciary.

It also raises the possibility of intimidation, where witnesses may feel pressured by fresh investigations rather than testifying freely in court. For the rule of law to thrive, investigations must stop once a matter is in court, allowing the judiciary to exercise its constitutional mandate without interference.

Why the Court Must Decide

In the end, only the Lagos High Court, presided over by Justice Serifat Sonaike, can resolve this matter. The five-count charge LD/23611C/2024 is before the bench, and that is where ownership, documents, and alleged transactions must be tested.

In my view, the GIS report has added little clarity. If anything, it has raised doubts by omitting crucial witnesses, failing to verify key documents, and overlooking standing court orders. Such a report should not overshadow the fact that a court of law is already seized of the matter.

Conclusion

The FCID’s re-investigation of a case already before the Lagos High Court is, in my opinion, unlawful in spirit and an affront to the judiciary. It risks confusing the public, undermining confidence in both police and courts, and creating a dangerous precedent for future cases.

The judiciary remains the only forum to resolve criminal charges and disputes over property. Parallel investigations at this stage not only lack legal foundation but also threaten the integrity of the justice system.

For these reasons, I believe the Lagos High Court must be allowed to proceed without interference, and all parties should submit themselves to its judgment. That is the only way to uphold the rule of law.

Opeyemi is Media and Communications aide to Dr. Eze Obidigwe.