Aloba Joseph, the father of late Nigerian singer Ilerioluwa Aloba, popularly known as Mohbad, has filed an application before the Lagos High Court sitting in Ikeja seeking a judicial review of the legal advice issued by the office of the State Director of Public Prosecution (DPP).
The application, which was filed on March 12, is brought ex-parte pursuant to Order 44 Rule 3 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2019, Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, and under the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
Through his lawyer, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Wahab Shittu, Mohbad’s father is seeking the quashing of the DPP’s legal advice in respect of the murder of his son.
Mr. Aloba, who is suing for himself and on behalf of the Aloba family, joined the Attorney General of Lagos and the DPP as respondents in the suit.
The applicant wants the court to quash the DPP’s advice as a result of a lack of fair hearing, pre-emption of the Coroner’s inquest—which is yet to conclude sitting—and because the vital suspects mentioned and implicated in the Coroner’s proceedings have been freed by the DPP’s legal advice.
In documents put before the court in support of the application, Mohbad’s father states that, by virtue of his position, he is well seized of the facts in the case.
He states, “That the death of late ILERIOLUWA OLADIMEJI ALOBA aka MOHBAD on the 11th of September 2025 was viewed as unnatural and suspicious, which led to him petitioning and demanding an inquest into the cause of death.”
“That pursuant to the applicant’s request to determine the circumstances leading to death, the inquest was referred to the Coroner’s Court, which commenced sitting on September 23, 2023, and which is yet to conclude sitting.”
“That while the proceeding is yet to be concluded by the Coroner’s Court, Magistrate Ejiro Kubenje, sitting at the Yaba Magistrate Court on the 26th of February 2025 and acting on the legal advice of the respondents, discharged and acquitted the 4 prime suspects—Abdul Azeez Fashola aka Naira Marley, Samson Balogun Eletu aka Sam Larry, Owodunni Ibrahim aka Prime Boy, and Opere Babatunde—in the controversial death of late Mohbad.”
“That the applicants became aware of the legal advice at the Magistrate Court when the suspects were being discharged and acquitted by the court.”
“That those discharged and acquitted suspects by the respondents pursuant to their legal advice have been mentioned and implicated in the coroner’s proceedings and have been summoned and are yet to appear and give evidence as to their role in the death of late Mohbad.”
“That the Police, through one ASP Mohammed Yusuf attached to the Homicide Section, State CID Panti, and the respondents through their Senior Counsel, Mr. George, participated in the Coroner’s proceedings. The State CID Panti forwarded the case containing their investigation to the respondents without informing the Coroner’s Court, and while both offices, particularly the respondents, were aware of the Coroner’s inquest, they proceeded to issue legal advice, which prompted the Magistrate Court to discharge and acquit the prime suspects in the controversial death of late Mohbad.”
“That I know as a fact that the act or omission of the respondents is without due regard to the Coroner’s Court, which constitutes an obstruction of the Coroner in the exercise of its statutory duties.”
“That I know as a fact that the respondents’ failure to allow the Coroner to conclude its proceeding and proceeding to issue the legal advice is pre-empting the outcome of the decision of the Coroner and is done without jurisdiction and is null and void.”
“That I know as a fact that the act or omission of the respondents issuing legal advice in respect of the matter upon which an inquest is being conducted amounts to obstructing and interfering with the Coroner’s investigation and potentially influencing the outcome.”
“That I know as a fact that the act or omission of the respondents’ legal advice, which constitutes an affront to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Coroner, is an overreach into the Coroner’s power to conduct inquests into suspicious and unnatural deaths, which are expected to run their course without external interference.”
“That I know as a fact that the act or omission of the respondents, apart from being pre-emptive of the Coroner’s proceedings, undermines the integrity of the inquest and potentially compromises the outcome of the Coroner’s investigation.”
“That I know as a fact that the act or omissions of the respondents while aware that the Coroner’s inquest is still pending, is to overreach the outcome of the inquest, which is improper.”
“That the applicant needs the intervention of this Honourable Court to get justice for the death of his son. Otherwise, allowing the legal advice from the respondents to stand may automatically put an end to the seriousness of the Coroner’s Court and its proceedings.”
“That the grant of this application will not be prejudicial to the respondents.”
No judge has been assigned to hear the application, and no date has been fixed for its hearing.
