Armed Robbery, Not Slippers, Led to Charges Against Lagos Duo – Justice Ministry

The Lagos State Ministry of Justice has clarified that a recent report suggesting a teenager and an adult were held in custody over a pair of slippers is inaccurate. Instead, the duo faced charges and subsequent prosecution for alleged conspiracy to commit robbery and armed robbery.

This clarification was issued on Friday by Mr. Adebayo Haroun, the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Lagos State Ministry of Justice, in a rejoinder referencing charge number ID/22014C/23. Haroun stated that the defendants were charged under Sections 299 and 297(2) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015, following accusations that they were part of a gang that robbed a man of his mobile phone and a gold chain.

The ministry's statement came in response to an online publication that claimed the defendants were detained solely because a pair of slippers they possessed was supposedly similar to those owned by the nominal complainant.

Detailing the court process, Haroun explained that the case was initially assigned to Justice Adenike Coker of the Ikeja High Court after the information was filed on May 31, 2023. However, it was later transferred to Justice Hakeem Oshodi in October 2025 due to Justice Coker's national assignment. The defendants entered their pleas on October 13, 2025, after which a trial date was set.

The prosecution had listed the nominal complainant, Daniel Lucky Danjuma, along with two police investigators, ASP Dolapo and Inspector Omozuafo Martins, as witnesses. Haroun disclosed that repeated attempts to ensure Danjuma's presence in court were unsuccessful as his phone remained unreachable. "The prosecuting team was unable to secure his attendance as his phone was unreachable," he quoted.

Consequently, the prosecution proceeded with its case, calling Inspector Martins, who testified on December 10, 2025. Martins recounted how the complainant had apprehended the defendants and brought them to the Ikeja Police Station.

According to Haroun, the complainant's statement to the police detailed an incident on November 27, 2022, where he and a friend boarded a "one-chance" bus. They were eventually dropped off at the National Bus Stop, near Oshodi, where he was allegedly attacked by men armed with a cutlass and a gun, who also reportedly used charm. He claimed they robbed him of an iPhone 13 Pro Max and a gold chain. The complainant further stated that he returned to the area the next day and allegedly found one of the defendants wearing his palm slippers. Identifying the man as one of his attackers, he then took both the first and second defendants to the police station.

Despite these initial accounts, the prosecution closed its case after failing to secure additional witnesses. This prompted the defendants' counsel to file a 'no-case submission'. Both parties filed and adopted their written addresses, leading to Justice Oshodi delivering judgment on September 29, 2026. The court ultimately upheld the no-case submission and discharged the defendants.

The DPP attributed this outcome to the crucial failure of the nominal complainant to appear in court and provide testimony against the accused. "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 stated. He further emphasized that the prosecution cannot fabricate evidence, especially when a key witness is absent. "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 added.

Haroun firmly rejected the narrative that the defendants were merely detained over 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 asserted. He concluded by affirming that the Attorney-General's prosecutorial authority will continue to be exercised in the public interest, for justice, and to prevent any abuse.