Five case files involving seven individuals were reviewed by CJMR and presented to the Ogun State Board of Mercy, resulting in one full release and one sentence commutation.

OGUN STATE CLEMENCY AS A NATIONAL REFERENCE POINT

In a landmark demonstration of constitutional mercy and restorative justice, the Governor of Ogun State, Prince Dapo Abiodun, CON, granted clemency to 81 inmates across correctional centres in celebration of Democracy Day. This reflects rehabilitation and humane correctional justice, including release from life imprisonment, commutation of death sentences, and reduction of custodial terms. However, beyond this gesture lies a national question: how many convictions across Nigeria still require urgent constitutional review?

MERCY DOES NOT EQUAL FINAL CERTAINTY

Mercy restores liberty; it does not necessarily establish the correctness of a conviction. Clemency may remove a person from the gallows or open the prison gate, but it does not automatically answer whether the original conviction was safe, complete, or supported by fully tested evidence. Common concerns include incomplete records, abandoned appeals, weak identification, disputed confessions, questionable dying declarations, and missing material witnesses.

OGUN STATE: BOARD OF MERCY REVIEW AND FULL CASE FILES

Five case files involving seven individuals were reviewed by CJMR and presented to the Ogun State Board of Mercy, resulting in one full release and one sentence commutation.

1. Adeyemi Faleye – Robbery
2. Musiliu Owolabi – Murder
3. Monsuru Mukaila & Abdullahi Ogundoyin – Robbery
4. Arinola Akinleye – Murder
5. Korede Odubela & Olalekan Lawal – Murder

OUTCOME OF THE FIVE CASE FILES

• Adeyemi Faleye – Granted total freedom.
• Musiliu Owolabi – Sentence commuted to ten years imprisonment.
• Monsuru Mukaila and Abdullahi Ogundoyin – Death sentences had earlier been commuted to life imprisonment following CJMR’s 2024 presentation, but their applications did not receive further consideration during the current review.
• Arinola Akinleye – Presented for review because of concerns surrounding the alleged dying declaration and the non-presentation of material evidence from the son.
• Korede Odubela and Olalekan Lawal – Application not considered because the conviction was considered too recent.

This demonstrates structured engagement between CJMR case review and the Ogun State Board of Mercy clemency process, reflecting measurable impact on executive mercy decisions.

CASE STUDY ONE: ADEYEMI FALEYE – ROBBERY CONVICTION AND FORENSIC REVIEW

For fifteen years, Adeyemi Faleye, a taxi driver and father of twins, lived under the terrifying shadow of death following his conviction for armed robbery. In 2023, a court registrar who understood the mission of CJMR contacted the Centre concerning his case. That single contact opened the door to a fresh search for truth.

By 2024, CJMR had carefully reviewed the records of proceedings, the judgment, and the available court processes. What emerged was deeply troubling: serious questions surrounded the integrity, credibility, and reliability of the evidence upon which Adeyemi Faleye’s conviction had been founded.

The Beginning of the Ordeal

On 28 February 2011, Adeyemi Faleye left home in search of his daily bread. According to him, while travelling from Aferiku towards Idiroko, his vehicle developed a mechanical fault at Mede. While waiting for his mechanic, he was apprehended by members of the OPC vigilante group on the basis that there was a robbery incidence that happened in the previous night. That arrest marked the beginning of a fifteen-year nightmare. He was subsequently charged with conspiracy and armed robbery and was sentenced to death by hanging on 13 February 2018. Throughout the trial, he maintained his innocence.

CJMR’s Intervention

As part of its prison ministry and wrongful conviction review programme, CJMR visited Adeyemi Faleye in custody. Following his persistent claim of innocence, CJMR undertook an independent forensic review of the judgment, witness testimonies and court records.

Issue One: The Arrest Narrative Collapsed

Adeyemi stated that he was arrested around 8:30 a.m. beside his broken-down vehicle by OPC vigilantes. However, police witnesses presented conflicting accounts, including a claim that he was arrested after a gun battle near the scene of the crime. The OPC vigilantes who allegedly arrested him never testified. If he was arrested beside his vehicle, how could he simultaneously have been arrested at the scene after a gun battle?

Issue Two: Material Contradictions in Prosecution Timeline

The prosecution witnesses presented conflicting timelines: PW1 stated he was robbed at his petrol station at about 8:00 p.m. on 27 February 2011; PW2 stated the robbery occurred at about 10:00 p.m. on 27 February 2011; These two people are petrol stations owners in the same environment. PW3 recorded the report time as 3:10 a.m. on 28 February 2011; PW4 stated the incident occurred at about 1:00 a.m. on 28 February 2011, while the accused maintained that he was arrested at about 8:30 a.m on 28 February, 2011. These are material contradictions. Furthermore, no substantial amount of money was recovered from the accused as proceeds of the alleged robbery, and no petrol station attendant or other independent witness testified to corroborate that a robbery occurred on the night of 27 February 2011.

Issue Three: The Confessional Statement

The conviction rested substantially on an alleged confessional statement. Adeyemi denied making the statement and maintained that it was written by the police. The unavoidable question is: who truly made the statement? Significantly, the investigating police officer admitted during cross-examination that he wrote the statement on behalf of the accused. The statement itself conflicted with the prosecution’s timeline. According to the statement, the robbery occurred around midnight or 1:00 a.m., whereas prosecution witnesses placed the incident between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m.

Issue Four: The Question of Reason and Logic

The prosecution’s narrative suggested that armed robbers remained around the vicinity of the crime scene for many hours after the robbery. Is it probable that armed robbers would remain in the same environment for as long as twelve hours waiting to be arrested? No independent witness testified about any gun battle, no petrol attendant testified, and no forensic evidence linked Adeyemi to the alleged crime.

The Turning Point: When the Trial Judge Spoke Beyond the Law

After sentencing Adeyemi Faleye to death, the learned trial judge recommended him for executive pardon. This recommendation was highly significant. It suggested lingering concerns regarding the totality of the evidence and the moral certainty required to justify the irreversible punishment of death. For CJMR, this recommendation became one of the strongest pillars upon which its intervention was anchored. When a judge convicts with the law but pleads for mercy, it may mean that the law has spoken, but justice is still unsettled.

CJMR’s First Intervention in 2024

Following its forensic review, CJMR prepared and presented a comprehensive petition to the Ogun State Board of Mercy in 2024. The petition highlighted contradictory evidence, conflicting accounts of arrest, failure to call material witnesses, and the doubtful confessional statement. Upon review, the authorities commuted Adeyemi’s sentence from death to life imprisonment. While this removed him from the shadow of the gallows, CJMR maintained that the case pointed to a possible wrongful conviction.

CJMR Returns to the Case in 2026

In 2026, CJMR embarked on a wider exercise of gathering complaints of wrongful convictions across the South-West. During this process, thirty-two complaints were received. Out of these, fourteen cases involving nineteen persons were carefully selected for further review and intervention. It was within this broader justice initiative that CJMR revisited the case of Adeyemi Faleye and once again approached the Ogun State Board of Mercy. This time, CJMR argued that mercy alone was insufficient. The Board was urged to consider the totality of the evidence, the contradictions in the prosecution’s case, the doubtful confessional statement, and the recommendation of the trial judge himself. CJMR maintained that where substantial doubt exists, justice demands more than commutation. It demands freedom.

CASE STUDY TWO: MONSURU MUKAILA AND ABDULLAHI OGUNDOYIN – TRUCK DRIVER AND MOTOR BOY CASE

The case of Monsuru Mukaila and Abdullahi Ogundoyin also raises serious questions deserving public attention. They were reportedly a truck driver and motor boy who were chartered by a man to load iron rods from a site to Berger. According to available information, the person who allegedly chartered them later ran away, while the driver and motor boy were apprehended.

Police investigation reportedly revealed that the man who chartered them was later arrested and subsequently released. The iron rods were also returned to the owner, who reportedly showed no further interest in pursuing the matter. It was alleged that a security guard was tied during the incident, which formed part of the basis upon which the matter was treated as armed robbery.

However, further concern arose when an allegedly exorbitant amount was demanded for bail. This reportedly led to an argument between the police and the driver. Following this disagreement, the driver and motor boy were charged to court for armed robbery and were eventually sentenced to death.

Upon reviewing the case, CJMR presented it to the Ogun State Board of Mercy. The outcome was the commutation of their death sentences to life imprisonment.

This case deserves further review because it raises important questions about the original complainant’s interest, the role of the person who allegedly chartered the vehicle, the return of the property, the alleged bail demand, and whether the full facts were properly weighed before the sentence of death was imposed.

CASE STUDY THREE: ARINOLA AKINLEYE – QUESTIONS SURROUNDING THE DYING DECLARATION

The case of Mrs. Arinola Akinleye raises important questions deserving careful review. Mrs. Arinola Akinleye was convicted in connection with the death of her husband following a mysterious fire incident. A significant aspect of the prosecution’s case was an alleged dying declaration said to have been recorded by the police.

However, the circumstances surrounding the alleged dying declaration raise serious concerns. According to her son, who remained with his father until his final breath, no such declaration was made identifying the cause of the fire or implicating his mother. He maintains that his father passed away without making any statement concerning how the fire occurred or who was responsible.

Available information further indicates that immediately after the incident, Mrs. Akinleye sought assistance by inviting a neighbour to help rescue her husband. While accompanying him to the hospital, the neighbour reportedly diverted to a police station and handed Mrs. Akinleye over to the police.

Another matter of concern is that the son, who was present with the deceased during his final moments and could potentially have provided direct evidence regarding whether any dying declaration was made, was not called as a witness during the trial. It must also be noted that counsel to the defendant reportedly raised the issue that the prosecution shielded away the evidence of Arinola’s son because of the possible impact his evidence could have had on the case.

These circumstances raise important questions: Was the alleged dying declaration accurately recorded? Why was the testimony of the deceased’s son, who remained with him until death, not presented before the court? Could his evidence have assisted the court in determining whether any dying declaration was ever made? Was all relevant evidence placed before the trial court?

These questions do not, by themselves, determine innocence or guilt. However, they highlight issues that may warrant careful post-conviction review to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to have been done.

Legal Significance

A dying declaration can constitute important evidence in criminal proceedings. Where credible questions arise concerning whether such a declaration was actually made, or where a material witness capable of clarifying the issue is not called to testify, those matters may deserve careful scrutiny during post-conviction review. Such review does not undermine the courts; rather, it strengthens public confidence in the administration of justice by ensuring that convictions rest upon reliable and fully examined evidence.

CASE STUDY FOUR: KOREDE ODUBELA AND OLALEKAN LAWAL – RECENT CONVICTION AND REVIEW CONCERN

Korede Odubela, a 75-year-old man, and his wife were arrested in 2013 on allegations relating to the death of their daughter. They were arraigned alongside seven other persons arrested for unrelated offences. On 14 May 2025, the wife and four other accused persons were discharged and acquitted, while Korede Odubela and Olalekan Lawal were convicted and sentenced to death for murder. Their application for clemency was not considered because the conviction was considered too recent.

This case remains important to the report because it reflects the need for transparency in case review and the need to understand why some accused persons are discharged while others arising from the same broad proceedings are convicted. It also shows why a structured post-conviction review mechanism should not depend only on the passage of time but should also consider the nature of the evidence, the role of each accused person, and whether there are unresolved questions requiring attention.

OYO STATE: ABANDONED AND STALLED JUSTICE

Alao Tunde – Like Musiliu Owolabi in Ogun State, his appeal was struck out in 2024, yet he remains in custody on the allegation of armed robbery, the offence he obviously did not commit. Tunde Adewole – Arrested in 2010 on the allegation of murder he obviously did not commit and on death row since 2015 without meaningful appeal progression. Friday Okoro – Arrested in 2009 along with his case mate on the allegation of armed robbery and convicted in 2014; his co-defendants were released in 2015 while his conviction was reaffirmed in 2024.

OSUN STATE: EXTENDED INCARCERATION WITHOUT RESOLUTION

Victor Akpoyibo has spent about 25 years in custody while his Supreme Court appeal has reportedly remained inactive since 2014. Ibrahim Ayuba’s appeal has reportedly not been heard at the Court of Appeal since 2018. Richard Adesanmi’s appeal failed in 2017 without meaningful progression thereafter.

EKITI STATE: CASES TRAPPED IN UNCERTAINTY

Kayode Seun was sentenced to life imprisonment on the allegation of kidnapping in controversial circumstances with an inconclusive appellate outcome. Ayodele Oladimeji remains a case of concern after being sentenced to life imprisonment on an allegation of rape despite questions surrounding the absence of the victim in court and disputed medical evidence. Abdulrashid Mutairu was arrested at 17 in 2017 and convicted in 2020 along with three others including his mother on an allegation of murder; his mother died in prison during the appeal process in the Supreme Court.

LAGOS STATE: NEED FOR STRUCTURED REVIEW

Lagos State cases involve disputed confessions, weak identification, long-term imprisonment, and abandoned appeals requiring systematic review. Many convicts remain helpless and hopeless without meaningful appeal support.

CJMR NATIONAL COMPILATION (2025)

CJMR compiled 14 wrongful conviction complaints involving about 20 individuals across South-West Nigeria. Only Ogun State has engaged meaningfully with review processes; others remain largely unresponsive.

NATIONAL PATTERN OF CONCERN

Recurring issues include abandoned appeals, missing records, prolonged detention without review, incomplete evidential foundations, disputed confessions, questionable dying declarations, and non-presentation of material witnesses.

CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATION

Justice is not only conviction but continuous constitutional reviewability of convictions within a reasonable time. The establishment of independent conviction review panels to examine post-conviction claims would serve as a corrective mechanism and provide a faster avenue for justice.

AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS

After fifteen painful years of incarceration, the Ogun State Government under Governor Dapo Abiodun granted Adeyemi Faleye amnesty. The taxi driver who once stood under the shadow of the gallows walked out of prison a free man. Musiliu Owolabi, whose case was struck out at the Court of Appeal, had his sentence commuted to ten years imprisonment. Their stories remind us that the search for justice does not end with conviction. Truth, persistence and restorative justice can still prevail.

Releasing individuals into society without clarifying the circumstances that led to their imprisonment may permanently attach stigma to persons who may not have committed the offences. If indeed a judicial error occurred, would Adeyemi Faleye ever receive an apology?

But this is not about one freed man. It is about the many still behind bars. It is about the silent prisoners whose case files are gathering dust in High Courts and Courts of Appeal across Nigeria. It is about those whose appeals have died quietly in registry drawers. It is about those who have been forgotten by the system but not by conscience.

THE REAL QUESTION BEFORE THE NATION

If one case file reviewed carefully can lead to the discovery of doubt and eventual freedom, then how many more files across Nigeria contain similar injustice waiting to be uncovered? CJMR respectfully urges Attorneys-General and Boards of Mercy to conduct comprehensive reviews of identified cases in the interest of justice, fairness, and constitutional responsibility.

THE REASON FOR THIS REPORT

When an appeal has been exhausted, even up to the Supreme Court, yet an individual continues to cry persistently on the claim of innocence, should that cry simply be ignored?

This report answers that question in the negative.

The finality of judicial proceedings is essential to the rule of law, but finality should not extinguish the search for truth where credible questions continue to arise. History has shown that wrongful convictions can occur despite the existence of appellate safeguards.

Whenever a prisoner persistently maintains innocence, society has a moral and constitutional responsibility to pause, listen, and carefully examine whether new evidence, overlooked facts, incomplete records, evidential contradictions, or other exceptional circumstances warrant further review.

The purpose of such review is not to undermine the courts or reopen every concluded case indiscriminately. Rather, it is to strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice by ensuring that no potentially innocent person remains imprisoned simply because all ordinary avenues of appeal have been exhausted.

This is the reason for this report.

CONCLUSION

Nigeria must move from isolated clemency to institutionalised conviction review systems. One potentially innocent person in prison is a constitutional responsibility awaiting correction.

CJMR does not seek to weaken the administration of justice. Rather, it seeks to strengthen public confidence in the justice system by ensuring that credible claims of wrongful conviction receive careful, impartial, and timely review.

SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATION

The motive of CJMR is based on the command of Scripture:

• Proverbs 31:8–9 calls us to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves and to ensure justice for those being crushed.
• Psalm 82:3–4 calls for justice for the poor, the orphan, the oppressed and the destitute, and for the helpless to be rescued.
• Proverbs 24:11–12 warns against ignoring those unjustly sentenced to die and reminds us that God weighs the heart and judge’s human action.

When questions of innocence arise, the law provides the framework for determining the truth, but conscience often provides the reason to begin the search. Whenever a person persistently cries out in innocence, someone should pause, listen, investigate, and allow the evidence to be carefully re-examined. Where error is discovered, the oppressed should be vindicated.

Thanks to those individual, churches and organization supporting this cause, may God bless you abundantly.

I want to sincerely thank our team at the CJMR for your commitment to the vision may the Lord reward you abundantly.

Signed:

Hezekiah Deboboye Olujobi CRJ
Founder, Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation (CJMR)

Centre for Justice, Mercy and Reconciliation is a grassroots organisation focusing on advocacy on behalf of those on death row and persons detained unjustly in South-West correctional centres, with remarkable achievements.

Contact: www.cjmr.com.ng | 08030488093