Bail Application Yet To Be Heard As Media Trial Intensifies In Hammed Akanbi Murder Case “A Criminal Trial Cannot Become A Popularity Contest” — Legal Observers

The ongoing murder trial involving Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi has taken a new turn, with legal observers cautioning against what they described as the growing influence of social media narratives on the criminal justice process.

While some online reports have portrayed Akanbi as a defendant who has repeatedly been denied bail by different judges of the Lagos State High Court, a review of the proceedings by his media office maintained that the substantive bail application filed before the judge handling the criminal trial has not been determined on its merits.

The development has renewed debate over the distinction between an application seeking permission to have a pending bail motion heard during the court’s annual vacation and the actual hearing and determination of a bail application.

“The substantive bail application filed following Akanbi’s arraignment before Justice A.T. Muyideen has, according to the sequence of proceedings, not been heard and determined on its merits,” the review stated.

It added that what came before vacation of judges were “applications seeking leave for the pending bail application to be heard during the court’s annual vacation.”

“That distinction is important,” the review noted, arguing that bail remained an incident of the constitutional presumption of innocence.

“An accused person standing trial has not been convicted merely because a criminal charge has been filed against him,” it stated.

Akanbi was arrested in April 2026 following allegations linking him to killings in Ajiran, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State. Police authorities have maintained that the case was investigated and that evidence was available for prosecution.

According to the account by his media office, Akanbi remained in police custody for more than 40 days before a fundamental-rights suit and an application in the nature of habeas corpus were filed before Justice O.L. Alebiosu.

By the time judgment was delivered on August 7, the State had filed criminal charges before Justice Muyideen.

The review said the rights proceeding could therefore not be treated as a substantive bail hearing, stating that the court “consequently declined to consider the request for his release on the original premise that he was being detained by the police without being charged to court.”

“That proceeding cannot properly be equated with a substantive bail application being heard and refused following arraignment in the criminal charge,” it added.

Police and other authorities have since appealed the August 7 judgment, according to reports.

The case was also complicated by Akanbi’s reported health condition.

According to the review, while in custody at the State Criminal Investigation Department, Panti, Akanbi “collapsed on about three occasions” and was transferred to the Police Hospital, Ikeja, on June 14.

On June 25, he was brought to court in an ambulance and reportedly remained on oxygen support.

He was subsequently ordered to be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre, but his lawyers and representatives said the facility declined to admit him because of his medical condition.

On July 3, Akanbi was eventually arraigned in a wheelchair and pleaded not guilty to the charges. His bail application was filed, but the court did not hear it that day.

A report on the July 3 proceedings said the court could not hear the bail applications because the Director of Public Prosecutions was still within the period allowed to respond. Justice Muyideen subsequently ordered that Akanbi return to the hospital for continued medical treatment.

“A request that the bail application be heard within the same week, particularly because of Akanbi’s reported medical condition, did not result in an immediate hearing,” the review stated.

The court adjourned the substantive trial to November 3, 5, 10, 19 and 25, 2026.

The review identified attempts by the defence to obtain permission for the bail application to be heard during the court’s annual vacation.

It said Justice O.O. Martins declined an application on July 20 after relying on an endorsement by Justice Muyideen adjourning pending motions until November.

Another application came before Justice A.M. Ipaye on August 27.

In the latest development, Justice Ipaye barred Akanbi from filing another similar application before vacation judges and directed the defence to approach the substantive judge handling the criminal case. The ruling was delivered in Suit No. LD/28350C/2026, The State of Lagos v. Shafi Fatai, Yusuf Ismaila and Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi.

Justice Ipaye held: “The Applicant is not permitted to bring same similar application again. They are to go before the Substantive Judge.”

The review, however, disputed aspects of the narrative surrounding the various applications, noting that the August 6 application before Justice S.I. Sonaike was reportedly brought by the other two defendants in the case rather than Akanbi.

“Whatever view is ultimately taken of the vacation applications, one fact remains central to the present controversy: an application seeking leave to have a bail motion heard is different from the hearing and determination of the bail motion itself,” the review stated.

Beyond the courtroom, the case has generated intense debate across social media and other platforms.

The review alleged that Akanbi had been subjected to sustained negative publicity, including references to a media briefing at which AIG Moshood Jimoh displayed photographs of him in handcuffs.

It also alleged that Akanbi was publicly described in some quarters as a “murderer, land grabber and a source of trouble to several homes.”

Those characterisations have been disputed by Akanbi’s representatives, while police authorities have continued to defend the investigation.

In July, Jimoh said the Ajiran case was already before the courts and that justice would prevail. He also said the police had evidence against the suspect.

Social media personalities and commentators have also become involved in the controversy.

One of the most prominent interventions came from Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan, who released materials he presented as investigative documents, voice notes and other information concerning the case.

According to the review, the materials significantly changed the online conversation surrounding the prosecution and were presented as evidence of a substantial land dispute involving Akanbi and some of the complainants.

The review, however, cautioned against treating materials circulated online as substitutes for evidence tested in court.

“The evidential value of any document, recording or voice note circulated on social media is ultimately a matter for a competent court where such material is properly placed in evidence,” it stated.

“Social-media publication cannot substitute for the judicial process.”

The case concerns allegations arising from killings in Ajiran, including the death of Sheriff Ishola Salami and the killing of Prince Ademola Akinloye.

The review urged the public to distinguish between the allegations contained in the charge currently before the court and other incidents that have featured prominently in public commentary.

It stated that “the charge presently involving Akanbi concerns the alleged murder of Sheriff Ishola Salami, while the killing of Prince Ademola Akinloye has also featured prominently in the wider media narrative.”

Police authorities, however, have described the broader Ajiran investigation as involving allegations connected to the two killings.

Legal observers quoted in the review warned against allowing public opinion to determine the outcome of a criminal case.

“A criminal trial cannot become a popularity contest in which guilt or innocence depends on which side commands more bloggers, followers, influencers or media coverage,” they stated.

“The constitutional presumption of innocence protects the unpopular accused just as much as it protects everyone else.”

The observers further cautioned against situations where public commentary appears to reach conclusions before the evidence is tested in court.

“The danger arises when public institutions or influential individuals appear to reach conclusions ahead of that process,” they said.

“The criminal justice system cannot simultaneously insist that an accused person is presumed innocent and permit him to be publicly presented as already guilty before his trial has run its course.”

They also argued that Akanbi’s reported health challenges and the circumstances surrounding his detention should be considered independently of the question of his eventual guilt or innocence.

“These circumstances deserve attention independently of the question of whether Akanbi is ultimately guilty or innocent,” the review stated.

“The legitimacy of a criminal justice system is tested not only by its capacity to convict the guilty, but also by its willingness to preserve due process for those whose guilt has not been established.”

With the substantive trial scheduled for November, the issue of bail remains a significant point of contention between the defence and prosecution.

The latest court ruling means that any further application of a similar nature is to be taken before the substantive judge handling the case.

“Most importantly, the substantive bail application filed before the court trying Akanbi has yet to be heard and determined on its merits,” the review concluded.

“That distinction should matter to anyone interested in an accurate account of the proceedings, irrespective of his or her view of the allegations against Akanbi.”

It ended by invoking the long-standing Blackstone principle: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

“That principle does not pronounce Akanbi innocent. Neither does it pronounce him guilty.

“It simply leaves a question that should trouble anyone concerned about the integrity of criminal justice: What if Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi is indeed innocent?” the review stated.