Oyo Police Command Counters N8,000 Debt Narrative on Student's Su*cide

The Oyo State Police Command has strongly refuted claims surrounding the arrest and subsequent prosecution of Al-Amin Mohammed, a student who tragically died by su*cide. The Command asserts that Mohammed was neither arrested nor charged in court over an alleged outstanding debt of ₦8,000.

Instead, police maintain that Mohammed faced charges of assault and malicious damage. This stemmed from an incident where he allegedly assaulted a female Point-of-Sale (POS) operator and damaged her Airtel SIM registration machine, which was valued at ₦177,000. This account from the police significantly differs from the version presented by Mohammed's family, who stated he was apprehended and taken to court following a disagreement concerning an ₦8,000 debt owed to the POS operator.

Mohammed passed away on September 17, just three days after his release from the Agodi Correctional Centre. In an official statement released on Saturday, the Command dismissed a publication suggesting Mohammed's detention was related to the debt as “false, unfounded and misleading.” The statement further clarified, “The Command wishes to categorically state that the narrative is false, unfounded and misleading, as it does not represent the circumstances of the case or the basis upon which the suspect was charged to court.”

According to the police investigation, Mohammed initially approached the POS operator to receive ₦23,000 in cash, with the understanding that he would transfer the same amount back to her via a POS transaction. The complainant complied, providing him with the cash. However, the suspect reportedly left the scene immediately after collecting the money without completing the transfer or returning the funds.

After persistent efforts, Mohammed eventually refunded ₦15,000, leaving a balance of ₦8,000, which he subsequently refused to pay. Consequently, the POS operator took possession of his mobile phone as collateral until the remaining ₦8,000 was settled.

The police further elaborated that on September 8, 2026, around 10 pm, Mohammed went to the complainant’s residence. Rather than settling the outstanding balance, he allegedly assaulted her and, during the altercation, damaged her Airtel SIM registration machine, valued at ₦177,000.

Mohammed’s mother, however, offered a contrasting account to PUNCH, stating that her son had gone to retrieve his phone, which had been seized due to the ₦8,000 dispute, and denied any damage to the complainant's property. The police noted that community members attempted to mediate the dispute, but when efforts failed, Mohammed was handed over to vigilantes who then brought him and the complainant to the police station.

“Upon receiving the parties, the Police heard from both sides and made a further effort to resolve the matter amicably. However, that intervention also proved unsuccessful, as the complainant insisted on pursuing the case in court,” the Command stated. The central point of contention between the two narratives remains the specific reason for Mohammed's prosecution.

While his family asserts the case originated from the ₦8,000 debt, the police firmly maintain that the outstanding debt was not the basis for the criminal charge. “Accordingly, having regard to the facts established during investigation and the evidence available, the suspect was charged to court for assault and malicious damage, and not for the outstanding ₦8,000. The distinction is important, as the criminal proceedings arose from the assault and the damage to the SIM registration machine valued at ₦177,000,” the Command emphasized.

The police also dismissed any insinuation that Mohammed was held in custody because he could not repay the ₦8,000. They clarified that the court granted him bail after his arraignment, but he remained at the Agodi Correctional Centre because he was unable to immediately meet the bail conditions. “He was subsequently released upon meeting the conditions,” the statement concluded. Earlier reports indicated Mohammed’s family claimed he was distressed by his arrest and detention and had expressed concerns about being taken to court over the dispute. The family also alleged that the dispute should have been [...truncated].