Mr. Joseph Aloba, father of the late singer Ilerioluwa Oladimeji Aloba, popularly known as Mohbad, has filed an appeal notice challenging a ruling by the Lagos High Court. The court had previously upheld legal advice that cleared music executive Azeez Fashola (aka Naira Marley) and show promoter Balogun Eletu (popularly called Sam Larry) of involvement in his son’s controversial death.
The appeal was lodged at the Lagos Division of the Court of Appeal and aims to overturn the judgment delivered on July 2, 2025, by Justice D.T. Olatokun.
Represented by his legal team, led by Senior Advocate of Nigeria Wahab Shittu and Don Akaegbu, Aloba is contesting the legal advice issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which, he argues, served as the basis for clearing key suspects in the matter.
According to court documents obtained by PUNCH Metro on Tuesday, Aloba believes the trial court made an error by concluding that the prosecutorial powers of the Attorney-General, as outlined in Section 211(1) of the 1999 Constitution, are “absolute and not subject to judicial review.”
He maintained that those powers must align with the principles of public interest, fairness, and legal due process, and should not be used as a means of protecting certain individuals from prosecution.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Elias v. Arkas (2018) 10 NWLR (Pt 1626) Pg 37, the appellant argued that “such power was not beyond judicial scrutiny, especially when it appears contrary to the public interest, interest of justice, or amounts to abuse of legal process.”
He, therefore, urged the court “to allow the appeal and set aside the lower court’s ruling and issue an order of certiorari to quash the legal advice issued by the DPP with Reference No. LJP/HOM/2023/170 concerning Mohbad’s death.”
Those named as respondents in the case include the Attorney-General of Lagos State, Lawal Pedro (SAN), and the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Earlier, in an ex parte motion before the Lagos High Court, Aloba pointed out that the coroner’s inquest, which began on September 29, 2023, had not reached a conclusion before the DPP proceeded with actions in the case.
He also noted that several individuals who were summoned by the Coroner’s Court and had been mentioned during proceedings were released prematurely and had not yet been questioned on their involvement.
Additionally, he claimed that the police and DPP moved forward without consulting the coroner, effectively interfering with the inquest’s legal mandate.
Advertisement
