A senior state counsel has reportedly been indefinitely suspended after withdrawing charges against eight men accused of kidnapping, murder and armed robbery, despite allegedly acting on the Attorney-General’s instructions, raising questions about accountability, prosecutorial independence and the handling of serious criminal cases in Kwara State.
The Kwara State Government has reportedly indefinitely suspended Senior State Counsel Cyril N. Kolo after he withdrew a criminal case against eight men accused of kidnapping, murder, armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms, sources within the state Ministry of Justice have told SaharaReporters.
The sources alleged that Kolo withdrew the charges on the instructions of the state Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Senior Ibrahim Sulyman, SAN, because the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to sustain the case.
They further attributed the evidential difficulties to inadequate government funding for criminal investigations, alleging that prosecutors were being expected to pursue serious cases without the resources needed to establish the allegations.
The reported suspension has raised a contentious question: Why would a prosecutor allegedly acting on the Attorney-General’s instructions face disciplinary action over the same decision?
According to the sources, Kolo was now being made to bear responsibility for a decision that, they insisted, was authorised by the ministry’s leadership.
“I saw the instruction from the Attorney-General myself. Kolo did not just wake up and decide to withdraw a case involving kidnapping and murder. He was acting on the instruction given to him,” one source told SaharaReporters.
“Now, they have suspended him indefinitely and are making him look like the person responsible for everything. They are using him as a scapegoat.”
The circumstances surrounding the reported suspension, including the official grounds for the disciplinary action, were not established in the information provided by the sources.
Kwara’s Anti-Kidnapping Fight Faces Fresh Questions
The controversy comes amid concerns about the prosecution of serious criminal cases in a state where communities have faced security challenges.
The sources alleged that the Ministry of Justice had considered withdrawing approximately 10 other kidnapping-related cases because of insufficient evidence and a lack of funds for further investigations.
They argued that prosecutors could not be expected to secure convictions when investigations had failed to produce sufficient evidence.
“How do you expect a lawyer to prosecute a kidnapping case when the investigation has not been properly done and there is no money to get the evidence needed? You cannot build a case out of nothing,” a source said.
The sources further alleged that inadequate funding had affected the ministry’s ability to prosecute serious crimes, including kidnapping and murder.
If substantiated, the allegations would raise questions about the adequacy of government support for criminal investigations and the systems in place to ensure that serious criminal cases are properly prepared before trial.
However, the claims about funding shortages and plans to discontinue other cases have not been independently established.
Sources Allege Different Priorities in Criminal Prosecutions
The ministry sources also alleged that the government was more willing to provide resources for cases involving prominent political figures than for investigations into violent crimes.
“Look at what is happening. When it comes to cases involving politicians like Bukola Saraki, Mashood Mustapha and others, there is always a sense of urgency. But when it comes to investigating kidnappings and murders, where is the money to do the proper work?” one source asked.
The allegation raises questions about how the government prioritises legal and investigative resources.
However, the sources did not provide documentary evidence establishing that funding for politically sensitive cases was prioritised over kidnapping investigations. The allegation therefore requires independent verification and a response from the state government.
Governor Reportedly Orders Fresh Prosecution After Public Outcry
Another source alleged that Governor AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq directed the Attorney-General to find a way to return the eight defendants to court after the withdrawal of the case attracted public attention.
According to the source, the governor also directed the ministry to halt plans to withdraw other kidnapping-related cases that had reportedly been identified for discontinuation.
“The governor has now directed the Attorney-General to find a way to bring those eight defendants back to court. He has also told them to stop withdrawing the other kidnapping cases they had already identified,” the source said.
The source further alleged that concerns about the government’s public image influenced the reported decision to reconsider the cases.
“They were already looking at about 10 kidnapping cases to withdraw because the evidence was not strong enough and there was no money to do the investigations properly. But now, the instruction is that they should leave those cases alone because withdrawing them will make the government look bad,” the source alleged.
These claims have not been independently verified.
If confirmed, they would raise questions about the relationship between prosecutorial decisions, executive directives and the evidential requirements for criminal proceedings.
A prosecution must be supported by sufficient admissible evidence and applicable law. Equally, the withdrawal of a case should not automatically be interpreted as proof of government interference or misconduct without establishing the circumstances surrounding the decision.
Eight Defendants Discharged After Charges Were Withdrawn
As previously reported by SaharaReporters, a Kwara State High Court sitting in Ilorin discharged eight men accused of kidnapping, murder, armed robbery and illegal possession of firearms after the prosecution withdrew the charges against them.
The defendants were identified as Suleiman Mohammed, Ibrahim Ahmed, Yekeen Raji, Aliu Saheed Babatunde, Abraham Alaka, Jooji Fajenyo, Salihu Umar and John Gazale.
The charges arose from an alleged kidnapping incident in Agbamu, Oyun Local Government Area, in August 2023.
According to the amended charge, the prosecution alleged that the defendants conspired to kidnap four people, including Peter Fadahunsi, who was listed as deceased in the charge.
The prosecution also alleged that the kidnappers demanded ₦90 million in ransom and collected ₦7 million before the victims were released. Other counts involved alleged armed robbery and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.
The allegations were not established through a conviction in the proceedings described.
During the court proceedings, Kolo reportedly informed the court that he was acting on the Attorney-General’s instructions before applying to withdraw the charges.
Justice Yusuf Adebayo Dikko subsequently granted the application and discharged the defendants.
The distinction is important: discharge following the withdrawal of charges is not, by itself, a judicial determination that the defendants were innocent of the allegations. The precise legal implications depend on the court’s order and the circumstances of the proceedings.
Court Official Questions Handling of the Case
Following the withdrawal, a court official who spoke to SaharaReporters criticised the handling of the case, alleging that inadequate investigation had weakened the prosecution.
“The manner in which the Kwara Government handled a case of high importance like this is worrisome,” the official said.
The official added that the government should have conducted a thorough investigation before bringing the defendants to court.
The comments add to the questions surrounding the prosecution, although the specific investigative deficiencies and the extent to which they affected the case would require further evidence.
Who Is Accountable for the Failed Prosecution?
The reported suspension of Kolo has placed the actions of the prosecutor, the Attorney-General and the state government under scrutiny.
If the withdrawal was authorised by the Attorney-General, what specific conduct is the government investigating in relation to Kolo?
If the prosecution lacked sufficient evidence, were the investigative shortcomings identified before the case reached court?
And if the government subsequently directed that the defendants be brought back before the court, what new evidence or lawful basis would support further proceedings?
These questions require clear answers from the relevant authorities.
The Kwara State Government also needs to clarify the reported suspension, the official grounds for the decision and whether the Attorney-General authorised the withdrawal as alleged.
The Attorney-General’s response would be particularly important in establishing whether Kolo acted within his instructions and what considerations informed the original decision.
At the heart of the controversy is a question of institutional accountability: if a prosecutor acted on an authorised instruction, who bears responsibility for the decision—and if the case was withdrawn because the evidence was insufficient, what steps are being taken to address the underlying investigative shortcomings?
The answers could help clarify the circumstances surrounding the withdrawal, the reported suspension and the state’s approach to prosecuting serious criminal offences.
This report is based on allegations attributed to sources who spoke to SaharaReporters. The claims concerning the suspension, funding shortages, executive directives and plans to withdraw other cases require independent verification. A response from the Kwara State Government and the Ministry of Justice should be included when available.
