Teenager, adult were charged with armed robbery, says Lagos Justice Ministry

The Lagos State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, Mr Lawal Pedro (SAN). Photo: Lagos State Government

The Lagos State Ministry of Justice has clarified that a teenager and an adult recently reported to have been detained over a pair of slippers were actually charged and prosecuted for alleged conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery.

The clarification was contained in a rejoinder issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Lagos State Ministry of Justice, Adebayo Haroun, on Friday concerning charge number ID/22014C/23.

Haroun said the defendants were charged under Sections 299 and 297(2) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015, following allegations that they were among a group that robbed a man of his phone and gold chain.

The clarification followed an online report alleging that the defendants had been kept in custody over a pair of slippers allegedly similar to those belonging to the nominal complainant.

He said the case was initially assigned to Justice Adenike Coker of the Ikeja High Court after the information was filed on May 31, 2023, but was later transferred to Justice Hakeem Oshodi in October 2025 following Coker’s national assignment.

According to the DPP, the defendants’ pleas were taken on October 13, 2025, after which the case was fixed for trial.

He said the prosecution listed the nominal complainant, Daniel Lucky Danjuma, and two police investigators, ASP Dolapo and Inspector Omozuafo Martins, as witnesses.

Haroun said repeated efforts to secure Danjuma’s attendance in court were unsuccessful because his telephone was unreachable.

“The prosecuting team was unable to secure his attendance as his phone was unreachable,” he said.

The DPP said the prosecution consequently commenced its case with Inspector Martins, who testified on December 10, 2025, about how the complainant arrested the defendants and took them to the Ikeja Police Station.

According to Haroun, the complainant stated in his statement to the police that he and a friend boarded a “one-chance” bus on November 27, 2022, and were eventually allowed to alight at National Bus Stop, close to Oshodi.

He allegedly told the police that he was subsequently attacked by some men armed with a cutlass and a gun, who also allegedly used charm, and robbed him of an iPhone 13 Pro Max and a gold chain.

• Hamzat backs church’s N2bn endowment fund
• Defilement: Lagos teacher bags life jail
• 2027: Lagos NDC gov candidate pledges free education, healthcare if elected

Haroun said the complainant returned to the area the following day and allegedly found one of the defendants wearing his palm slippers.

The complainant then identified the man as one of his alleged attackers and took the first and second defendants to the police station, the DPP said.

However, after efforts to secure another witness failed, the prosecution closed its case, prompting the defendants, through their counsel, to file a no-case submission.

Haroun said both parties filed and adopted their written addresses before Justice Oshodi delivered judgment on September 29, 2026.

He said the court upheld the no-case submission and discharged the defendants.

The DPP attributed the outcome to the failure of the nominal complainant to appear in court and testify against the defendants.

“The nominal complainant who identified the defendants as part of the gang that attacked him did not come to court to testify in this case as such the evidence to link the defendants with the crime was unavailable,” Haroun said.

He added that the prosecution could not manufacture evidence where a key witness failed to appear in court.

“The failure of the complainant to attend court underscores the importance of the fact that the prosecution cannot manufacture evidence unless the general public performs its part by actively being interested in the outcome of criminal infractions reported at police stations,” he said.

Haroun therefore rejected the portrayal of the case as one in which the defendants were detained simply because of a pair of slippers.

“It is therefore not true that the defendants were detained because of a pair of slippers but were alleged to have robbed the nominal complainant with dangerous weapons,” he said.

The DPP added that the prosecutorial authority of the Attorney-General would continue to be exercised “in the interest of the general public, justice and to prevent abuse.”