As social-media narratives intensify around the murder trial, court proceedings tell a more complicated story about Akanbi’s bail, detention and presumption of innocenceThe criminal proceedings involving Alhaji Hammed Tajudeen Akanbi have, for several months, generated intense public interest, particularly across social media.
Beyond the allegations before the court, however, an equally significant controversy has emerged over the true status of his bail application and the increasingly blurred line between criminal prosecution and trial by media.
A recurring narrative across some online platforms is that Akanbi has applied for bail on several occasions and has repeatedly been refused by different judges of the Lagos State High Court.A review of the chronology of the proceedings presents a materially different picture.
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. What have subsequently come before vacation judges were applications seeking leave for the pending bail application to be heard during the court's annual vacation.
That distinction is important.
Bail is ultimately 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. Detention pending trial is principally intended to secure attendance at trial and protect the administration of justice, rather than operate as punishment before conviction.
THE FIRST APPLICATION: HABEAS CORPUS BEFORE JUSTICE ALEBIOSU
Following Akanbi’s arrest in April 2026 and subsequent investigation by the State Criminal Investigation Department, Panti, he remained in police custody for more than 40 days without a court order.
A fundamental-rights enforcement action was pending before Justice Alebiosu, and an application in the nature of habeas corpus was subsequently brought challenging his continued detention. By the time judgment was delivered on August 7, 2026, however, the circumstances had changed.
The State had filed a criminal charge against Akanbi before Justice A.T. Muyideen. 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.
AKANBI’S HEALTH AND THE EVENTS PRECEDING HIS ARRAIGNMENT
The circumstances surrounding Akanbi’s health provide another important dimension to the controversy. While in police custody, his health reportedly deteriorated considerably. He was said to have collapsed on about three occasions at SCID, Panti, with one incident allegedly requiring the intervention of persons around him, including the police prosecutor handling proceedings against him. His condition eventually resulted in his transfer to the Police Hospital, Ikeja, on June 14, 2026.
By June 16, his condition reportedly prevented his production before the Magistrates’ Court at Ogba. The Magistrate consequently adjourned proceedings and directed that he be medically fit before his next production, with provision for an appropriate officer of the health facility to update the court should he remain medically incapable of attending. The Director of Public Prosecutions was represented during those proceedings.Then came June 25.
A production warrant issued by Justice A.T. Muyideen was reportedly served on Akanbi at about 10:30 p.m. on June 24. He was produced before the court the following day. He arrived at the court premises in an ambulance and with oxygen attached to his nose.His plea could not be taken that day.The court ordered that he be remanded at the Ikoyi Correctional Centre.
The correctional facility, however, reportedly declined to admit him because of his medical condition. He was eventually returned to the Police Hospital in Ikeja following a further order of the court. The case was adjourned to July 3, 2026 for arraignment.
Between June 25 and July 3, his condition reportedly deteriorated further, leading to his referral from the Police Hospital to the Federal Medical Centre, Ebute Metta.
JULY 3: THE SUBSTANTIVE BAIL APPLICATION
Akanbi was eventually brought before Justice Muyideen on July 3, 2026 in a wheelchair. He pleaded not guilty. By then, an application seeking his release on bail had been filed in the substantive criminal proceedings. But the application was not heard.
The Director of Public Prosecutions served a counter-affidavit and response in court that day. 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 matter was instead adjourned, with November 3, 5, 10, 19 and 25, 2026 fixed for trial in view of the intervening court vacation.
Consequently, the substantive bail application before the trial court remained undetermined.
WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE VACATION JUDGES?
With the substantive application still pending and Akanbi’s health reportedly deteriorating, an attempt was made on July 20 to obtain leave for the bail application to be heard during the annual vacation.The application came before Justice O.O. Martins.
The court declined the request after relying on an endorsement on the case file by Justice Muyideen indicating that pending applications and motions had been adjourned until November 3, 2026. The application for leave was accordingly refused.
This was an application for permission to have the bail matter heard during vacation. It was not a determination of the substantive bail application itself.Another attempt was subsequently made to secure a vacation hearing following further medical reports concerning Akanbi’s condition. That application came before Justice A.M. Ipaye on August 27, 2026.
The court declined the application on the basis that previous applications seeking leave had been presented before vacation judges, including Justice O.O. Martins and Justice Sonaike, and regarded another application as an abuse of court process.
There is, however, an important factual controversy surrounding that conclusion.The August 6 application before Justice Sonaike was reportedly brought by the two other defendants standing trial alongside Akanbi, rather than by Akanbi himself. If that account of the court record is correct, treating it as Akanbi’s second attempt to obtain vacation leave would raise an obvious question about the premise upon which the subsequent application was considered.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 OTHER TRIAL: SOCIAL MEDIA
While these proceedings have unfolded in court, another trial appears to have been taking place outside it. Since February 2026, Akanbi has been the subject of sustained social-media commentary over the murder allegations.A significant turning point was the public intervention of AIG Jimoh Moshood of the Nigeria Police Force.
At a media briefing during the controversy, photographs of Akanbi in handcuffs were displayed and statements were allegedly made portraying him as a murderer, land grabber and a source of trouble to several homes.This was occurring against the background of sustained online publications concerning Akanbi.
Among the social-media personalities specifically identified in the controversy is Rukayat Omolara, who operates under the handle @rukkydgreat on Instagram and TikTok. Another platform repeatedly mentioned is @islander_events on Instagram, said to be owned by Muhammed Olanrewaju Isiaq.It has been alleged that these online publications were sponsored or encouraged by Aare Bashir Fakorede, who is identified as a major complainant in the criminal proceedings. That remains an allegation and should not be mistaken for a judicial finding.The controversy subsequently widened when Chief Femi Falana, SAN, a prominent human-rights lawyer, publicly commented on the matter and called for Akanbi's prosecution for murder while investigation was reportedly still ongoing.
But perhaps the most consequential social-media intervention came from Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM).Akanbi, while receiving medical treatment, had publicly appealed to VeryDarkMan and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for intervention and a thorough investigation of the murder allegation, maintaining that the accusation against him arose from a land dispute involving himself and some of the complainants.
VeryDarkMan subsequently released and discussed purported investigative documents, voice notes and other materials relating to the case.Those publications significantly altered the online conversation surrounding the prosecution. Among other things, the audio materials circulated by VDM were presented as demonstrating the existence of a substantial land dispute between Akanbi and some of the complainants, particularly Aare Bashir Fakorede.
The publications also drew public attention to an important distinction that had become obscured in some of the online commentary: 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 surrounding him.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. Social-media publication cannot substitute for the judicial process.The same principle applies equally to material favourable or unfavourable to Akanbi.
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE CANNOT DEPEND ON SOCIAL-MEDIA POPULARITY
There is a larger institutional issue at stake.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. The constitutional presumption of innocence protects the unpopular accused just as much as it protects everyone else. Akanbi may ultimately be found guilty or not guilty. That determination belongs to the court after hearing admissible evidence from the prosecution and defence.The danger arises when public institutions or influential individuals appear to reach conclusions ahead of that process.
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.
HAS AKANBI REALLY BEEN DENIED BAIL FOUR TIMES?
Against this background, the assertion that Akanbi has applied for bail four times and been refused four times deserves careful scrutiny.The chronology does not support such a simplistic characterisation.There was an earlier habeas corpus application arising from his prolonged police detention. There is a substantive bail application before Justice Muyideen following his arraignment.
There have also been attempts to obtain leave for that substantive application to be heard during the court's vacation. These are legally and procedurally distinct events.Most importantly, the substantive bail application filed before the court trying Akanbi has yet to be heard and determined on its merits. 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.
WHEN PRE-TRIAL DETENTION BECOMES PUNISHMENT
Akanbi's case also raises a broader question about the administration of bail in Nigeria. An accused person is not supposed to serve punishment while awaiting the determination of whether he committed an offence.The purpose of bail is generally to reconcile the liberty of an unconvicted person with the need to ensure his attendance at trial, prevent interference with witnesses or evidence, and protect the proper administration of justice.
According to the account surrounding Akanbi’s detention, he spent more than 50 days in police custody before his eventual arraignment and has continued to experience significant health challenges.It is further claimed that during portions of his treatment at the Police Hospital there were periods when police officers were not stationed immediately around him, yet there was no reported attempt to escape.
Perhaps one of the more troubling episodes allegedly occurred on June 25 after the Ikoyi Correctional Centre declined to receive him because of his medical condition. Akanbi was reportedly left around Oba Akinjobi Way, Ikeja, for several hours until about 10:30 p.m., when Justice Muyideen subsequently directed that he be returned to the Police Hospital where he had been receiving treatment.
These circumstances deserve attention independently of the question of whether Akanbi is ultimately guilty or innocent. 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.
WHY THE SUDDEN INSISTENCE ON CORRECTIONAL CUSTODY?
It is equally necessary to dispel the prosecution’s narrative that the Police could no longer have Akanbi in police custody following his arraignment. The question is simple: having kept Akanbi in police custody for over 60 days, including a substantial period without a valid court order, why the sudden urgency to move him to a correctional centre when he was already undergoing treatment at the Police Hospital?
More significantly, the correctional facility itself reportedly declined to admit him because of his medical condition, resulting in the court directing that he be returned to the Police Hospital. The issue, therefore, is not indefinite police custody after arraignment, but why his peculiar medical circumstances could not have been judicially accommodated without first attempting to remove him from ongoing medical care.
WHAT IF AKANBI IS INNOCENT?
There is no justification for replacing a trial before a competent court with a trial on Instagram, TikTok, blogs or at press conferences. Neither should material circulated by Akanbi’s supporters automatically establish his innocence. Both propositions flow from the same principle: guilt or innocence must be determined by evidence subjected to the judicial process.Those who accuse him are entitled to pursue their complaints and present whatever admissible evidence they possess.
Akanbi is equally entitled to challenge that evidence, present his defence, seek bail and insist upon the constitutional presumption of innocence. The courts must be allowed to do their work without external pressure from either side.William Blackstone's famous formulation remains relevant centuries later: “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?
