Legal analysts have said only the court, not police reports can determine the defendants’ guilt or innocence in the trial of two lawyers, Ademola Owolabi and Adebayo Akeju set to resume on October 13 before Justice Serifat Sonaike of Lagos State High Court
Owolabi and Akeju are in trial with real estate developer, Alex Ochonogor, on charges of forgery and wilful destruction of property.
Analysts say the controversy over two conflicting police reports underscores why the judiciary remains the proper forum for resolving the matter.
The first report, on November 15, 2023, by Special Enquiry Bureau, said the disputed property was sold to two buyers—Ochonogor and Continental Properties.
It queried the validity of certain documents, faulted Owolabi for lack of due diligence, and recommended charges of conspiracy, forgery, and encroachment.
But a second report of June 13 from General Investigation Section exonerated the defendants.
It described Ochonogor’s transactions as legal, affirmed authenticity of a demolition notice and a Memorandum of Loss, and recommended that the case be referred to Directorate of Public Prosecutions.
However, while identifying Ochonogor as complainant and Owolabi as sole witness, the GIS report listed “NIL” under exhibits—raising doubts about how such allegations could stand without evidence.
Critics argue that producing a fresh report while the matter was already before the court undermines the rule of law by shifting evidential ground outside judicial scrutiny.
Analysts further contend that GIS investigators relied largely on statements from the accused while overlooking critical witnesses such as Dr. Eze, the current property owner who still holds the original title documents, and Major Mustapha, the original allottee whose signature was allegedly forged.
They add that no effort was made to authenticate the demolition notice with the Lagos State Ministry of Lands or to verify the Memorandum of Loss with the Ministry of Justice.
According to legal experts, these inconsistencies reinforce why it is the court—and not the police—that must assess the credibility of the reports and issue binding pronouncements.
“The duty of the police is investigation; the duty of the court is adjudication. When the two overlap, confusion arises. That is precisely why the court must make the final pronouncement,” a senior lawyer observed.
With trial set to resume, attention is now on the judiciary to determine the evidential value of the police reports and to decide whether the defendants are guilty or innocent of the charges.
