Ogun Police Rejects ‘Unlawful Detention’ Claim in Ajuwon Row

What began as a noisy allegation of unlawful detention in Ajuwon has now turned into a full-scale credibility battle, with the Ogun State Police Command insisting the matter was not a civil tenancy quarrel at all, but a lawful assault and breach-of-peace complaint that was investigated, settled with administrative bail, and later withdrawn in writing.…

Atlantic Post

May 7, 2026

5–7 minutes

Administrative Bail, Ajuwon, assault case, Atlantic Post, Breach Of Peace, Ogun State Police Command, Police Clarification

Ogun Police Fires Back At Atlantic Post Report, Says Ajuwon Case Was A Lawful Assault Investigation

The Ogun State Police Command has issued a forceful rebuttal to an Atlantic Post report that portrayed the Ajuwon matter as an alleged case of unlawful detention linked to a landlord and tenant dispute, insisting instead that the case was properly handled as a reported incident of assault and conduct likely to cause a breach of peace.

In a detailed press release signed by the Police Public Relations Officer, DSP Oluseyi B. Babaseyi, the Command said it had “noted with concern” the publication titled “Ogun Police, Tenants and the Peril of Criminalising Civil Disputes”, describing the report as “misleading and incomplete” and a “distortion of facts” that did not reflect how the matter was professionally handled.

According to the police statement dated 6th May 2026, the case was first reported on 9th April 2026 by a family member of the alleged victim. The complaint, the Command said, was that the victim had been involved in an altercation with tenants over electricity-related issues, and that the confrontation “reportedly resulted in physical confrontation and a subsequent medical incident involving the landlord.”

That account is sharply different from the version initially presented by family members and residents, who had claimed there was no evidence of assault and that the police had turned a civil disagreement into a criminal matter. The Command, however, says the matter was never treated as a tenancy enforcement case.

“In line with standard investigative procedures,” the Command said, “the persons involved were lawfully invited, the scene and relevant persons were assessed, and statements were obtained from all parties involved.”

The police further insisted that the case was handled strictly as a criminal complaint. In the Command’s words, “The matter was handled strictly as a reported case of assault and breach of peace, with due regard to due process and the rights of all parties.”

That statement is central to the police defence. It seeks to draw a clear line between an ordinary landlord and tenant disagreement, and a situation the police say crossed into criminal territory because of an alleged physical confrontation and an alleged medical incident.

The Command also stated that after preliminary investigation, the matter was “managed at the level of the Division,” and that the parties were “granted administrative bail in accordance with established procedures,” while officers made efforts towards de-escalation and “amicable resolution.”

Perhaps the most significant point in the clarification is the police claim that the complainant later withdrew the case. According to the statement, “Subsequently, the complainant formally withdrew the case through a written letter, confirming that the matter had been amicably resolved by the parties involved.”

That withdrawal, if fully documented and verified, changes the tone of the dispute considerably. It suggests that what was initially reported as a hard-edged detention saga may in fact have been a short-lived criminal complaint that moved through the division, ended in administrative bail, and was later settled by the parties themselves.

The Command was equally emphatic in dismissing any suggestion of illegal detention. “For the avoidance of doubt, at no time were any persons unlawfully detained,” the police said. “All police actions taken were strictly within constitutional and procedural limits, including lawful invitation, investigation, and administrative bail.”

This rebuttal is not just a routine public relations response. It is an attempt to reclaim the narrative after the original report raised serious questions about police conduct, due process, and whether a personal dispute had been converted into a criminal weapon. The police are now saying the opposite: that they acted within the law, followed procedure, and even allowed for a peaceful settlement.

The Command also claimed it had already responded to a media platform that formally sought clarification, but alleged that the eventual publication “contained deliberate misrepresentation and selective interpretation of facts in a manner capable of creating a false narrative.”

That accusation goes beyond disagreement over facts. It suggests the police believe the earlier report did not merely get some details wrong, but materially altered the meaning of the case. In its strongest language, the Command said the publication was “capable of undermining public confidence in lawful policing and due process.”

The statement ended with a broader warning to the public and the media. The Command said it “strongly cautions against the deliberate distortion of facts aimed at misrepresenting lawful police actions and misleading the public,” and advised members of the public to “disregard sensational accounts and rely only on verified information from official Police communication channels.”

For readers following the matter, the police clarification is now the latest and most authoritative account from the Command’s side. It reframes the Ajuwon controversy as a reported assault and breach of peace case that was investigated, de-escalated, and then withdrawn after an amicable settlement, rather than as an unlawful attempt to use police powers to settle a tenancy dispute.

Still, the episode leaves several important public-interest questions behind. How quickly were the parties invited? What exactly did the written withdrawal say? Was there any medical report supporting the original complaint? Were witnesses independently interviewed before the matter was resolved? And if the complaint was withdrawn, at what point did that happen relative to the original allegations of detention?

Those are not just editorial questions. They are the questions that determine whether the public has the full picture.

For now, the Ogun Police Command is standing firmly by its position that the Ajuwon matter was handled “strictly within constitutional and procedural limits,” while insisting that the earlier portrayal of the case was inaccurate. The dispute over the facts may have shifted from the compound in Ajuwon to the public arena, but the deeper issue remains the same: how easily ordinary domestic and tenancy disputes can become explosive once police intervention, fear, and conflicting narratives enter the picture.

If the Command’s version is correct, then the case was not one of unlawful detention at all, but a lawful police response to a complaint that was eventually withdrawn. If the earlier account holds any part of the truth, then it still raises concerns about how such matters are initially framed and how quickly they can escalate before clarity emerges.

Either way, the Ajuwon episode has now become a lesson in the danger of incomplete reporting, public suspicion, and the fragile trust between citizens and law enforcement in local disputes that turn combustible.