In every constitutional democracy, allegations against public officials deserve careful scrutiny. Equally important, however, is the principle that documentary evidence must outweigh speculation, public sentiment or social media campaigns. In the unfolding controversy surrounding the investigation into the Ajiran double murder case, official police records now emerging appear to substantially contradict allegations of corruption levelled against Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone 2, AIG Olohundare Moshood Jimoh, while reinforcing the importance of allowing the judicial process to run its full course.
Documents reviewed by our Correspondent indicate that the investigation into the killings of Prince Ademola Akinloye and Sheriff Ishola Salami was neither a personal initiative nor a selective prosecution by AIG Jimoh. Rather, the records show that the investigation commenced following a formal petition submitted to the Inspector-General of Police by Chief Rotimi Williams’ Chambers on behalf of the Ojomu Chieftaincy Family of Ajiran.
Official correspondence further reveals that on January 8, 2026, the Principal Staff Officer to the Inspector-General of Police conveyed the IGP’s directive instructing then Lagos State Commissioner of Police, Olohundare Jimoh, to investigate the allegations. The available records therefore suggest that Jimoh acted strictly pursuant to lawful instructions from Police Headquarters rather than personal discretion.
The development comes amid widespread allegations circulated on social media by activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), who publicly accused the senior police officer of corruption, bias and abuse of office, while challenging him to institute criminal defamation proceedings if the allegations were false. However, no documentary evidence has been publicly presented to substantiate those allegations.
The leaked official memo presents a significantly different narrative.
According to the investigation records, detectives obtained statements from multiple complainants and witnesses, including the widow of one of the deceased victims, who reportedly narrated how her husband was chased, shot and attacked with machetes during the fatal incident.
The records further indicate that two arrested suspects — Shafi Fatai, also known as “Fabo”, and Yusuf Ismaila, alias “Bariga” — allegedly made separate confessional statements implicating businessman Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi as the individual who allegedly financed and directed both killings. The suspects reportedly mentioned separate payments running into millions of naira allegedly made for the execution of the murders.
While the admissibility, voluntariness and evidential value of those statements remain matters exclusively for judicial determination, their existence directly contradicts claims that investigators had no factual basis for identifying Akanbi as a suspect.
The official investigation file also contains references to additional witness testimony alleging that Akanbi sought intervention for the release of arrested suspects and withdrawal of the murder cases in exchange for resolving a disputed community land matter. Investigators stated that a recorded telephone conversation supporting the allegation was reportedly played before the investigating police officer.
Again, whether such material ultimately satisfies the criminal burden of proof is a matter entirely for the courts. Nevertheless, the documents indicate that investigators relied on multiple strands of evidence rather than mere suspicion or speculation.
Perhaps even more significant are the court records attached to the investigative memo.
Contrary to claims that police acted outside the law, certified court documents reportedly show that Magistrate Court No. 3, Ogba, Ikeja, initially granted police leave on February 16, 2026, to arrest and remand the suspect for fourteen days while investigations continued.
Although that order was subsequently set aside on procedural grounds relating to counsel’s right of audience, the records further reveal that the Federal High Court in Lagos later issued a separate warrant of arrest on April 10, 2026, authorising law enforcement authorities to secure Akanbi’s appearance in connection with investigations into alleged conspiracy and murder.
Legal analysts note that the subsequent Federal High Court order remained valid unless and until set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Equally important is the allegation that AIG Jimoh personally interacted with the suspect after his arrest.
Official records categorically deny that allegation.
According to the memo, Akanbi was arrested by INTERPOL authorities in the Republic of Benin before being handed over to INTERPOL Nigeria and subsequently detained at the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Panti, pending transfer in accordance with established police procedures.
The documents state that Jimoh’s role was limited to coordinating with INTERPOL offices in Abuja and Lagos to facilitate the suspect’s lawful repatriation and subsequent transfer for investigation.
No evidence contained in the official records suggests any improper personal interaction between the senior police officer and the suspect following his arrest.
Beyond the legal issues, the controversy raises a broader institutional concern.
No criminal justice system can function effectively if investigators become targets of coordinated campaigns each time influential suspects are investigated. At the same time, every law enforcement officer must remain accountable where credible evidence of misconduct exists. The balance lies in allowing verifiable facts—not emotion, speculation or social media narratives—to determine accountability.
This is precisely why documentary records, judicial proceedings and independent scrutiny remain indispensable.
Further strengthening confidence in the investigation is the intervention of the Centre for Human and Socio-Economic Rights (CHSR), which publicly commended AIG Jimoh for what it described as professionalism, diligence and strategic leadership during the investigation of the Ajiran murders.
The organisation specifically praised the arrest of the suspects and the investigative work that culminated in their arraignment before the courts, describing the process as one that helped restore public confidence in law enforcement.
Importantly, the group did not issue a blanket endorsement of every officer involved. Instead, it also expressed concern over the alleged conduct of some operatives attached to the Delta Force Unit at SCID Panti, urging continued professionalism, neutrality and strict adherence to due process throughout the ongoing prosecution.
That balanced position lends additional credibility to its intervention, demonstrating support for the integrity of the investigation while insisting that every officer connected with the case must remain impartial and accountable.
Comparatively, democracies across the world continue to emphasise that criminal investigations should be judged on evidence presented before competent courts rather than campaigns conducted on social media. Whether in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada or Australia, allegations alone rarely determine guilt or innocence. Documentary evidence, witness testimony, forensic findings and judicial review remain the recognised pillars upon which justice is built.
Nigeria should be no different.
The Ajiran murder case remains before the courts, and every defendant retains the constitutional presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Equally, every investigating officer is entitled to the same presumption of integrity unless credible evidence establishes otherwise.
Section 36(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), guarantees every person charged with a criminal offence the presumption of innocence until proved guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. By the same token, public officials are equally entitled to have allegations against them assessed on the basis of credible evidence rather than speculation, conjecture or public sentiment.
The leaked records now available appear to provide substantial documentary support for the actions taken by AIG Olohundare Moshood Jimoh throughout the investigation. They also suggest that many of the allegations circulating in the public domain deserve to be carefully examined against the official documentary record before conclusions are reached.
As the prosecution proceeds, it is the courts—not social media, public pressure or competing narratives—that will ultimately determine the guilt or innocence of those standing trial.
Until then, the documentary trail presently in the public domain underscores an enduring principle of justice: allegations may attract attention, but only credible evidence establishes the truth. In a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law, that principle remains the strongest safeguard for both the innocent and the integrity of the nation’s criminal justice system.
Dr. G. Fraser. MFR
Headlinenews.news Special Investigative Desk
