A routine job in Lagos has allegedly turned into a four-day detention ordeal, a ₦45,000 payment and a fresh demand for accountability from Nigeria’s police authorities.
Sunday Moses Olugbemi, a Lagos-based worker, has alleged that policemen arrested and detained him for four days after he completed a job at the residence of a man known as “Pastor”, following an accusation that he had stolen a mobile phone.
Olugbemi told SaharaReporters that he had gone to the man’s residence to work, completed the job and left without receiving his payment. He said he returned home at about 8pm on a Friday before being contacted and asked to come back because a phone could not be found.
“I went there to work. I finished the work and left there on Friday. And they did not even pay me that day,” Olugbemi said.
He added: “I left there and arrived home around 8pm. Then they told me they were looking for a phone and asked me to come back.”
According to his account, he had already told the man that he intended to travel for another job. Instead, he alleged, police officers were brought to his home and took him into custody.
“That was how they came with police to arrest me and locked me up at the police station,” he said.
What followed is the central allegation now demanding scrutiny: Olugbemi said he remained in detention for four days before the missing phone was eventually located.
“I spent four days there. Then later they saw the phone. They took me from home and locked me up for four days on wrong accusation. The phone was later found,” he alleged.
But according to Olugbemi, the discovery of the phone did not immediately end his ordeal. He said he was required to pay ₦45,000 before he was released.
“I even later bailed myself from the police. The police still collected ₦45,000 from me after remanding me for four days on false allegations,” he alleged.
These claims have not, from the evidence publicly available for this report, been independently established in court. Nor has the Lagos State Police Command publicly confirmed the circumstances of Olugbemi’s arrest, detention, the recovery of the phone or the alleged payment by the time of publication. That distinction matters: the allegations are serious, but accountability reporting must separate an accusation from a proven fact.
Take It Back Movement demands investigation
The matter was subsequently taken to the Take It Back Movement, whose Lagos State Coordinator, Adekunle Adeyemi Taofeek, condemned what he described as an abuse of police powers.
Taofeek said the case was brought to his attention by a senior member of the movement who had previously worked alongside the late human-rights lawyer Chief Gani Fawehinmi, SAN.
According to Taofeek, Olugbemi was detained at Igando Police Station over the alleged theft of a mobile phone, even though the device was later recovered while he was still in custody.
“A man was arrested and detained at Igando Police Station for four days over an allegation of stealing a phone. Fortunately, the phone was later found while the man was still in detention, proving that he was innocent of the allegation,” Taofeek said.
The assertion that the recovery “proved” Olugbemi’s innocence should itself be treated carefully. Finding a supposedly stolen phone does not, on its own, resolve every possible question about possession, intent or the circumstances of the disappearance. But if the police investigation established that Olugbemi neither stole nor unlawfully possessed the device, the discovery would plainly undermine the basis of the accusation against him.
Taofeek further alleged that the phone’s owner instructed the police to release Olugbemi after the device was recovered.
The more serious allegation, however, concerns the ₦45,000 reportedly demanded before release.
“Shockingly, I was informed that the DCO allegedly demanded and collected the sum of ₦45,000 from the man before he was released,” Taofeek said.
He added: “This man was detained for four days for an offence he did not commit, only to be allegedly extorted for ₦45,000 before regaining his freedom.”
The movement, he said, intends to pursue the matter legally.
“I will be contacting our legal team to explore appropriate legal action against the complainant and the Nigeria Police Force,” Taofeek said.
The legal questions raised by the allegation
The allegations go beyond an ordinary dispute between a worker and the person who hired him. They potentially raise questions about arrest procedure, the length of detention, access to legal advice and the demand for money in connection with release.
Section 35 of Nigeria’s Constitution guarantees personal liberty except in circumstances permitted by law. It also provides that a person arrested or detained must be informed of the facts and grounds for the arrest within 24 hours in a language he understands. Where a person is arrested on reasonable suspicion of a criminal offence, the Constitution further provides that he should be brought before a court within a “reasonable time”; where a court is within 40 kilometres, the constitutional definition of reasonable time is generally one day. The same section states that anyone unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation and a public apology from the appropriate authority or person.
The legal position is also significant under the Nigeria Police Act. Section 32 of the Act, as reflected in the currently available consolidated text, provides that a person shall not be arrested merely for a civil wrong or breach of contract, while a suspect is to be brought before a court as prescribed by law or otherwise released conditionally or unconditionally. The Act also requires officers to inform arrested persons of the reason for arrest and of important rights, including the right to remain silent, consult a lawyer and, where applicable, obtain free legal representation.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act similarly provides mechanisms for suspects detained in non-capital cases to seek court intervention where they are not released on bail after 24 hours.
That does not mean every four-day detention is automatically unlawful. The legality of any particular detention depends on the offence alleged, the circumstances of the arrest, whether the suspect was taken before a court, whether a lawful basis for continued detention existed and what records were made by the police.
Those are precisely the questions an impartial investigation should establish in the Olugbemi case.
The ₦45,000 allegation is potentially even more damaging
If Olugbemi’s account is substantiated, the alleged ₦45,000 payment would move the case beyond questions surrounding investigative judgement and into the territory of alleged police extortion or corrupt practice.
Nigeria’s police leadership has repeatedly said extortion and professional misconduct are unacceptable.
In November 2024, the Nigeria Police Force said Inspector-General of Police Kayode Egbetokun had adopted a zero-tolerance position towards alleged extortion and abuse of power, after officers in Zone 16 were accused of extorting ₦10 million from young Nigerians. The Force said the money was recovered and the officers were detained and subjected to orderly-room trial.
More recently, the Federal Ministry of Information reported in July 2026 that Delta State police officers involved in a POS extortion case were reduced in rank after an orderly-room proceeding. The command reiterated that officers were not authorised to demand or receive money from members of the public under any guise and encouraged complaints through the Police Complaint Response Unit.
The Nigeria Police Force has also publicly highlighted its Complaint Response Unit as a mechanism for receiving complaints involving professional misconduct, extortion, harassment and human-rights abuses. In July 2026, the Force said the CRU was being strengthened to improve response times, case tracking and transparency.
At the federal level, the Police Public Complaints Committee likewise states that it investigates complaints involving police abuse and seeks to provide an avenue for Nigerians to pursue redress. The committee’s current platform describes its services as free and explicitly invites complaints concerning police misconduct and violations of rights.
Why the Igando allegation matters
The location also matters.
Igando, in Lagos, has featured in previous public controversies involving allegations of police abuse and misconduct. That history does not establish wrongdoing in the present case, but it reinforces why complaints involving arrest, detention and alleged payments for release require transparent investigation rather than informal resolution.
The police station itself has been rebuilt after the destruction of the former facility during the #EndSARS unrest, making the broader question of institutional trust especially relevant. The challenge for the current police leadership is not simply to prosecute serious crime but to persuade citizens that police stations are places where rights are protected rather than bargaining points where freedom can allegedly be exchanged for cash.
The Police Public Complaints Committee was expressly revived to give Nigerians another route for reporting police abuse and pursuing redress.
What investigators should establish
A credible inquiry into Olugbemi’s allegations should be documentary, not rhetorical.
Investigators should establish the precise time and circumstances of his arrest; the identity and rank of the officers involved; the allegation entered in the station’s occurrence book; the statement of the complainant; the time the missing phone was reported; the time and manner in which the device was recovered; whether Olugbemi was formally charged; whether he was taken before a court; and the legal authority relied upon for keeping him in custody for four days.
The alleged ₦45,000 transaction requires particular attention.
Was the money paid in cash or electronically? Was a receipt issued? Was it described as bail, administrative charges, investigation expenses or something else? Who allegedly demanded it? Who received it? Was it entered in any official police record? Was the money deposited into an authorised government account, or handed directly to an officer?
Those questions can turn a disputed allegation into an evidential trail.
There is also the issue of the complainant. If the owner of the phone asked police to release Olugbemi after the device was recovered, investigators should determine whether the complainant maintained the theft allegation after recovery, whether any statement of withdrawal or clarification was made and whether the police independently continued the investigation.
“The police must protect citizens, not exploit their vulnerability”
Taofeek said the alleged incident demonstrated why independent oversight remains necessary.
“The victim deserves compensation for the unlawful detention and the ordeal he was subjected to. Any officer found to have participated in extortion or other misconduct should face the appropriate disciplinary and legal consequences,” he said.
He also issued a broader warning to the police institution.
“The Nigeria Police Force must protect citizens, not exploit their vulnerability,” Taofeek said.
“We will continue to demand accountability, justice and respect for the fundamental rights of every Nigerian.”
Those words capture the wider public-safety significance of the allegation.
For a citizen facing a criminal accusation, the police station should be the place where facts are established, evidence is tested and lawful procedure is followed. It should not become, as alleged here, a place where the accused spends days behind bars and emerges only after money changes hands.
But the responsible response is not to pronounce guilt before an investigation. The proper test is evidence.
The police should therefore publicly clarify whether Sunday Moses Olugbemi was arrested, why he was detained for four days, who authorised the detention, when the phone was recovered, why he was not released immediately if there was no remaining legal basis to hold him, and whether any officer received ₦45,000 in connection with his release.
If the allegations are false, the police can establish that quickly through records.
If they are true, the institution faces a different obligation: identify those responsible, return any unlawfully obtained money, provide the victim with appropriate redress, and impose disciplinary or criminal sanctions where warranted.
That distinction is vital because police accountability is not an attack on policing. It is part of policing.
The Nigeria Police Force itself has reaffirmed that its internal accountability mechanisms are intended to address complaints of extortion, harassment, abuse of power and human-rights violations.
For Olugbemi, however, the immediate question is painfully simple: if the phone was found and the allegation against him collapsed, why did he spend four days in detention—and why, according to his account, did ₦45,000 have to be paid before the ordeal ended?
Until those questions are answered with verifiable records, the allegation remains unresolved.
What is not in dispute is that cases of alleged police extortion and unlawful detention strike at the heart of public confidence. A police force cannot effectively fight violent crime while citizens believe that an accusation alone can place their liberty at risk and that money may determine when the cell door opens.
That is why the Olugbemi allegation deserves more than a social-media argument. It deserves a proper investigation.
Follow us on our broadcast channels today!
- WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VawZ8TbDDmFT1a1Syg46
- Telegram: https://t.me/atlanticpostchannel
- Facebook: https://www.messenger.com/channel/atlanticpostng
Join the debate; let's know your opinion.