For stories, adverts, & ENQUIRIES, wHATSAPP US @ +2347036240302
How Lagos Police Allegedly Kept Seriously Ill Defendant Despite Court Order –Detailed Timeline
How Lagos Police Allegedly Kept Seriously Ill Defendant Despite Court Order –Detailed Timeline
CORRUPTION
The Nigerian
8/6/20265 min read
A detailed court timeline has revealed how the Lagos State Police Command allegedly continued to keep a seriously ill defendant in its custody despite a Lagos High Court order transferring him to the Nigerian Correctional Service.
The court timeline, as provided by a source familiar with the case, exposed a standoff over compliance with judicial directives weeks before social media influencer Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), became involved in the matter after a viral hospital video thrust the case into the national spotlight.
The timeline, which recounts events from June and July 2026, indicates that the dispute initially centered on alleged non-compliance with court orders, constitutional limits on police detention, and disagreements between the Nigeria Police Force and the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) over the lawful custody of the third defendant, Ahmed Tajudeen Akanbi.
According to the timeline, the case first came before Justice A. T. Muyideen of the Lagos State High Court on June 25, 2026.
Although prosecutors informed the court that Akanbi had been brought to court in an ambulance, he was reportedly never physically produced before the judge.
Instead, a medical officer presented by the police prosecutor appeared before the court without any written medical report and allegedly gave only a verbal explanation of the defendant's health condition.
After considering the circumstances, Justice Muyideen was said to have ordered that Akanbi be remanded at the Ikoyi Minimum Custodial Centre.
"After considering the circumstances, the Court ordered that the 3rd Defendant be remanded at the Ikoyi Minimum Custodial Centre," it said.
In making the order, the judge reportedly held that the Nigeria Police Force had exhausted the constitutionally permissible period within which it could lawfully keep the defendant in custody.
The court emphasized that continued detention by the police would violate the constitutional guarantees of personal liberty contained in Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution.
Justice Muyideen consequently directed that custody of the defendant be transferred to the Nigerian Correctional Service, while ordering that correctional authorities should be responsible for taking him to any hospital whenever medical treatment became necessary.
The matter was thereafter adjourned until July 3, 2026. However, the court order reportedly encountered immediate obstacles.
According to the court timeline, the defendant was transported in an ambulance to the Ikoyi Minimum Custodial Centre, where officials of the Nigerian Correctional Service allegedly declined to admit him.
The court details stated that upon arrival, Akanbi appeared strapped to a hospital bed, and was reportedly unable to communicate, answer basic questions or even identify himself.
Correctional officials allegedly refused to accept custody under those circumstances.
The disagreement between officers of the Nigeria Police Force and officials of the Nigerian Correctional Service reportedly escalated at the custodial facility and attracted the attention of the Chief Judge of Lagos State, who was present at the centre during activities marking the judiciary's 71st anniversary.
The Chief Judge reportedly informed the trial judge of the development, after which the defendant was returned to the High Court premises.
Faced with what was described as an unusual situation, Justice Muyideen reportedly issued an interim directive by telephone authorising the police to continue taking the defendant to the Police Hospital for treatment pending the next court date.
Although the original remand order remained valid, the police consequently retained physical custody of the defendant on an interim basis.
When proceedings resumed on July 3, all three defendants were formally arraigned and entered their pleas before the court.
During the proceedings, counsel to the third defendant reportedly relied on an Affidavit of Urgency dated July 2 in support of a bail application.
The affidavit disclosed that the defendant had been examined by the Nigeria Police Medical Services on June 28 and subsequently referred to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-Metta, for further medical treatment.
"When the matter resumed on 3rd July 2026, all three Defendants were arraigned and took their respective pleas," it said.
"During the proceedings, counsel for the 3rd Defendant relied on an Affidavit of Urgency dated 2nd July 2026 in support of a bail application. The affidavit disclosed that the Defendant had been examined by the Nigeria Police Medical Services on 28th June 2026 and referred to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute-Metta, for further treatment."
According to the timeline, the Director of Public Prosecutions reportedly requested time to respond to the allegations contained in the affidavit, prompting the court to briefly stand down the matter.
Upon resumption, Justice Muyideen reportedly reaffirmed that the remand order issued on June 25 remained valid, subsisting and binding.
The judge expressed concern that a lawful order of the court had apparently not been complied with and questioned why the Deputy Comptroller of the Ikoyi Custodial Centre had failed to formally explain the Nigerian Correctional Service's refusal to assume custody of the defendant.
The Director of Public Prosecutions reportedly informed the court that the prosecution had no objection to the defendant receiving medical treatment wherever necessary.
However, the DPP reportedly maintained that the central issue before the court concerned lawful custody, arguing that since the constitutional period for police detention had expired, the defendant ought to remain in the custody of the Nigerian Correctional Service, which bears statutory responsibility for transporting inmates requiring specialist medical treatment.
Although Justice Muyideen was said to have agreed with that constitutional position, he reportedly considered that immediately returning the defendant to the Ikoyi facility could recreate the earlier disagreement between police and correctional authorities.
According to the timeline, the judge therefore directed that, as an interim arrangement, the police should continue taking the defendant for medical treatment while expressly maintaining that the original remand order remained valid and had not been set aside.
The court also ordered the Deputy Comptroller of the Ikoyi Minimum Custodial Centre to appear and explain why the remand order had not been implemented.
The case was subsequently adjourned to November 3, 5, 10, 19 and 25, 2026.
According to the timeline, the matter later attracted widespread public attention after a video surfaced online showing the third defendant, Akanbi, lying on a hospital bed while appealing to VDM for assistance.
Following the publication of the video, VeryDarkMan reportedly became actively involved by releasing a series of videos and commentaries on the pending criminal proceedings.
The timeline stated that VeryDarkMan's broadcasts questioned aspects of the police investigation and prosecution, discussed issues already before the court, and made several allegations and assertions concerning parties connected to the case.
The publications generated significant reactions across social media, turning the criminal proceedings into a subject of national public debate.
According to the timeline, VeryDarkMan's intervention became a significant development because it occurred while the criminal proceedings remained pending before a court of competent jurisdiction and while issues surrounding the third defendant's lawful custody had yet to be finally determined by the court.
It noted that the case extends beyond the criminal allegations against the defendants, raising broader constitutional and institutional issues relating to compliance with judicial orders, the limits of police detention, the statutory responsibilities of the Nigerian Correctional Service, and respect for the authority of the courts.
It added that the sequence of events also demonstrates how a pending criminal prosecution became the focus of widespread public commentary after the circulation of the hospital video and VeryDarkMan's subsequent involvement, raising important questions about the relationship between ongoing judicial proceedings and social media commentary.