Lawyers to Mr. Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi have faulted the recent call by human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Mr. Femi Falana, for the prosecution of their client over alleged murder, attempted murder, and destruction of property, describing the intervention as “premature, reckless, and legally unsustainable.”
In a strongly worded rejoinder issued in response to a publication in the national dailies of May 10, 2026, counsel to Akanbi, Mr. Adedotun Ajulo, Esq., accused Falana of attempting to influence public opinion and prejudice ongoing investigations through media advocacy.
Ajulo stated that Falana’s public demand for prosecution amounted to “a deliberate assault on due process,” insisting that his client remains constitutionally presumed innocent.
“With the greatest respect, the said intervention by the Learned Silk is not only premature but patently reckless, legally unsustainable, and unbecoming of a practitioner of his standing.” The statement read.
The legal team argued that by virtue of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, Akanbi remains innocent until proven guilty, stressing that he has only been under investigation since April 16, 2026.
“Any call for prosecution at this stage without a concluded investigation or credible charge is nothing short of a deliberate assault on due process.” Ajulo said.
The lawyers further challenged the basis of Falana’s allegations, asking “Upon what factual or evidential foundation does Chief Femi Falana, SAN anchor his sweeping and inflammatory demand? Or is this yet another instance of populist grandstanding designed to whip up public sentiment in aid of a cause that cannot withstand judicial scrutiny?”
Ajulo maintained that there was “substantial evidence” showing that Akanbi was not in Nigeria on April 18, 2023 and August 26, 2024, the dates on which Sheriff Ishola Salami and Prince Akinloye were allegedly murdered.
According to him, none of the suspects currently facing prosecution in connection with the killings had linked Akanbi to the crimes in any statement.
“None of the individuals currently charged in connection with the said murder has made any statement linking our Client to the alleged crime.” The statement added.
The lawyers also insisted that there was no evidential or circumstantial connection between Akanbi and any of the accused persons currently standing trial.
Ajulo further denied allegations that his client had ever been convicted for land grabbing or destruction of property.
“Our Client has never been convicted by any court of competent jurisdiction in Nigeria for the destruction of property belonging to Chief Femi Falana, SAN or any other person whatsoever.” He said.
The rejoinder also accused former Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Jimoh Moshood, of bias and abuse of process in the handling of the case. According to the statement, Moshood unlawfully declared Akanbi wanted on February 19, 2026, without first obtaining a prior invitation or a valid court order.
The lawyers alleged that following the declaration, Akanbi’s property within the Ajiran community was invaded and vandalised by “identifiable persons,” while police authorities allegedly failed to act despite petitions supported by video and photographic evidence.
Ajulo disclosed that a petition submitted to the then Inspector-General of Police on February 23, 2026, reportedly led to the withdrawal of the case file from Moshood and its reassignment to the Force Criminal Investigation Department, FCID, Alagbon, Lagos, for independent investigation.
He also revealed that an earlier arrest and remand order obtained against Akanbi was later set aside by a competent court, while another court subsequently refused a similar application and instead directed that the businessman be invited properly and not arrested without due process.
“It was on the strength of these subsisting court orders and the reassignment of the investigation to FCID Alagbon that we, as Counsel, advised our Client to return to Nigeria to answer to the allegations in a lawful manner.” Ajulo stated.
The lawyers, however, described Akanbi’s eventual arrest in Cotonou, Benin Republic, as suspicious and contrary to existing judicial directives. They also rejected claims that their client was a fugitive, arguing that his conduct before arrest contradicted such allegations.
“If indeed our Client were a fugitive, he would have been apprehended at the point of entry into the Benin Republic. No fugitive conducts himself openly within a foreign jurisdiction driving a Nigerian-registered SUV conspicuously customised with his own name, as our Client did.” The statement added.
The legal team further condemned the public parade of Akanbi in handcuffs and leg chains on April 20, 2026, describing it as “a disgraceful media spectacle” allegedly orchestrated to humiliate and prejudice the investigation.
According to the lawyers, another petition subsequently led to the withdrawal of the case file from Moshood for a second time and its reassignment within the police hierarchy.
Ajulo accused Falana of ignoring “glaring evidential deficiencies” and lending credibility to a process allegedly tainted by procedural abuse.
“One would have expected a figure of his repute to interrogate these inconsistencies, not to weaponise them against an untried citizen.” He said.
The statement further suggested that Falana’s public comments created the impression that he may be acting in pursuit of undisclosed interests.
“The conduct and public pronouncements of Chief Femi Falana, SAN, in the face of glaring contrary facts, give rise to a reasonable and unavoidable inference that he may be acting in furtherance of undisclosed interests rather than from a position of detached legal objectivity.” The rejoinder stated.
Ajulo insisted that his client would not be “sacrificed on the altar of public theatrics or professional grandstanding,” warning that legal steps could be taken against individuals allegedly spreading misinformation capable of undermining Akanbi’s rights.
“The administration of criminal justice in Nigeria is not and must never be reduced to a spectacle dictated by media narratives or influential voices. It must remain anchored on evidence, due process, and the sanctity of the Constitution.” The statement concluded.
