An Oyo State High Court has ordered the Police Service Commission (PSC) and the Inspector-General of Police (IGP) to investigate one Aliyu Morufu ,a police officer attached to the State Criminal Investigation Department (SCID), Iyaganku, Ibadan, over allegations that N300,000 collected as bail money was paid into his personal bank account, after finding that the Nigeria Police unlawfully intervened in a civil land dispute and violated the fundamental rights of five citizens.
In a judgment delivered on July 8, 2026, and sighted by WestNG, Justice Gabriel Opayinka held that the police exceeded their constitutional powers by turning themselves into “investigators and judge on ownership of land” instead of leaving the parties to ventilate their claims before a competent civil court.
The court ruled that the arrests, detention, intimidation and harassment of the applicants over the ownership dispute at Olorunda Village, near Eagle Flour Mills along the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, were unconstitutional and breached their rights to personal liberty, dignity and freedom of movement guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
The applicants in the suit are Akinrinade Dauda, Akinrinade Bolaji, Rafiu Olabamiji Adetonwa, Abdullahi Adetonwa and Adeleke David Atanda.
The respondents are the Police Service Commission; Inspector-General of Police; Assistant Inspector-General of Police, Zone II; Officer Ojo Lamidi; Officer Saheed Esho; Officer Aliyu Morufu (also identified as Alhaji Moruf Aliu); Commissioner of Police, Oyo State; and Ademola Adeshina, also known as Ajanaku.
The dispute arose after rival land claimant Ademola Adeshina (Ajanaku), a notorious land grabber, petitioned the police, accusing the applicants of destroying the topography of a disputed parcel of land.
Rather than treating the matter as a civil ownership dispute, the police arrested and detained several of the applicants on different occasions.
Justice Opayinka held that the police acted ultra vires by investigating ownership of land instead of referring the parties to the High Court for determination, stressing that law enforcement agencies cannot be deployed as instruments of intimidation in private civil disputes.
One of the most striking aspects of the case centred on allegations that the applicants were compelled to pay N860,000 and another N470,000 before regaining their freedom on bail.
The applicants tendered evidence showing that N300,000 was allegedly transferred into UBA account number 9304649738, said to belong personally to Officer Aliyu Morufu.
Although the police denied the allegation, the court observed that the respondents failed to effectively rebut the claim because they did not produce Morufu’s bank statement for the relevant period to show that the money was never received.
Rather than making a final finding on the alleged payment, the court directed the Police Service Commission and the Inspector-General of Police to investigate the transactions on Officer Morufu’s account.
It ordered that if the investigation confirms receipt of the N300,000 alleged bail payment, the money must be refunded to the applicants and disciplinary proceedings initiated against the officer for corruption and unjust enrichment in accordance with police regulations.
The judgment was equally critical of Ademola Adeshina, whom the court found used the police machinery to pursue what was essentially a private land dispute.
The court noted evidence that Adeshina identified himself as a “land grabber”, demanded three plots of land from one of the applicants and instigated the police action instead of pursuing his claims through the courts.
Justice Opayinka consequently awarded N2 million in damages jointly and severally against the police respondents for violating the applicants’ fundamental rights and a further N1 million against Adeshina for his role in the constitutional breaches.
The court also issued a perpetual injunction restraining the police authorities, Officer Aliyu Morufu and the other police respondents, Adeshina, their agents and privies from further arresting, harassing, intimidating or otherwise interfering with the liberty of the applicants in connection with the land dispute.
In a pointed warning to law enforcement agencies, Justice Opayinka held that the constitutional duty of the police is to investigate criminal offences, not to determine ownership of land or become instruments in private disputes, and insisted that civil disagreements must be resolved by the courts, not through intimidation and unlawful arrests.
