Ta'awunu Human Rights Initiative THURIST

11/10/2026

07/10/2026

Military, DSS, police rescue 20 Oyo corps members kidnapped in Imo.

06/10/2026

PRESS RELEASE

URGENT PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION, PROTECTION OF THE CHILD AND PROSECUTION OF THE SUSPECT

We write as a human-rights organisation deeply concerned about the alleged r**e and sexual abuse of a five-year-old child Abdulafeez Ahisha, allegedly by one Bayo who is the son of a serving police officer.

The allegation is of grave concern given the tender age and vulnerability of the alleged victim and the reported relationship between the suspect and a serving member of the Nigeria Police Force.

At this stage, we are not asking any authority to prejudge the guilt of the suspect. We are however demanding that the allegation be subjected to an independent, transparent, thorough and prompt criminal investigation with the safety, dignity and best interests of the child at the centre of the process.

1. THE ALLEGED INCIDENT

It has been brought to our attention that the five-year-old child, Abdulazeez Ahisha, was allegedly subjected to r**e and sexual abuse by the said Bayo.

Given the age of the alleged victim, the allegation demands an immediate and professional response from all relevant authorities.

We emphasise that the suspect is entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence until otherwise established by a court of competent jurisdiction. However, that principle does not prevent the police or other competent authorities from conducting a prompt and comprehensive investigation.

The extreme vulnerability of a five-year-old child makes the allegation particularly serious and requires immediate measures to protect the child from further harm, intimidation, pressure or contact with the suspect.

2. THE MATTER IS ALLEGEDLY BEING HANDLED AT THE AREA COMMAND, DURBAR, OYO STATE

We are informed that the matter is presently being handled at the Police Area Command, Durbar, Oyo State.

However, we have received information giving rise to serious concern that there may have been attempts by some individuals to resolve the matter through an amicable or private settlement because the suspect is the son of a serving police officer.

If this information is correct, it is deeply concerning and requires immediate investigation.

An allegation involving the alleged r**e or sexual defilement of a five-year-old child is a serious criminal matter. It should not be improperly reduced to a private dispute capable of being extinguished through financial inducement, apology, family negotiation or any other informal arrangement.

Any attempt to interfere with the lawful investigation of such an allegation should itself be examined by the appropriate authorities.

3. THE ALLEGATION MUST NOT BE BURIED OR IMPROPERLY COMPROMISED

The alleged r**e or sexual abuse of a child is a grave criminal allegation and must be treated with the seriousness required by Nigerian law.

The fact that the suspect is reportedly the son of a serving police officer must not confer upon him directly or indirectly any immunity from investigation or prosecution.

The status, position or relationship of any person connected to the Nigeria Police Force must not be permitted to influence the proper administration of criminal justice.

Where there is credible evidence establishing that a criminal offence has been committed, the matter should proceed in accordance with the law subject to the constitutional rights of the suspect and the applicable rules of criminal procedure.

4. DEMAND FOR AN INDEPENDENT AND THOROUGH INVESTIGATION

We therefore respectfully demand that the Inspector-General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Oyo State Command, immediately ensure that:

The allegation is thoroughly investigated by officers who are sufficiently independent of the suspect and any person who may have a personal or institutional interest in the matter.

The child, Abdulazeez Ahisha, is immediately protected from intimidation, pressure, retaliation, further abuse or unnecessary contact with the suspect.

The child is provided with appropriate medical attention and, where necessary, a properly conducted forensic medical examination by qualified professionals.

All relevant evidence including medical evidence, witness statements, electronic evidence and any other material relevant to the allegation, is promptly preserved.

Any allegation that an attempt has been made to procure an improper amicable settlement of the matter is independently investigated.

No police officer or other person is permitted to intimidate, threaten, induce or improperly pressure the child's family into withdrawing, abandoning or compromising the complaint.

Where the investigation establishes sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge, the suspect, Bayo, should be charged before a court of competent jurisdiction and prosecuted in accordance with the law.

The matter should not be administratively closed merely because the suspect is the son of a serving police officer or because the parties may have purportedly reached a private understanding.

5. CALL FOR POLICE SERVICE COMMISSION INTERVENTION

We particularly call upon the Police Service Commission (PSC) to take cognisance of the allegation that attempts may have been made to compromise, suppress or improperly interfere with a serious criminal complaint involving the son of a serving police officer.

If, following appropriate investigation, any police officer is found to have:

a. attempted to suppress the complaint;

b. discouraged or pressured the victim's family from pursuing the matter;

c. interfered improperly with the investigation;

d. attempted to procure an improper settlement;

e. concealed, destroyed or interfered with relevant evidence;

f. intimidated or pressured the complainant or witnesses; or

g. abused his or her official position to protect or favour the suspect,

such conduct should be investigated and, where established, subjected to the appropriate disciplinary and/or criminal consequences under Nigerian law.

We therefore call upon the Police Service Commission to investigate the conduct of any police officer implicated in any attempt to improperly compromise, suppress or interfere with the investigation and to take appropriate action where misconduct is established.

6. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW

The protection of children and other vulnerable persons requires public institutions to respond impartially whenever credible allegations of serious criminal conduct arise.

The fact that the suspect is reportedly the son of a serving police officer must not create a different standard of justice.

Every person, irrespective of family relationship, social status or connection to a law-enforcement institution, should be subject to the same lawful investigative and judicial processes.

We therefore urge the relevant authorities to demonstrate through their actions that no family connection to a serving police officer can provide immunity from lawful investigation or prosecution.

7. OUR DEMANDS

In view of the foregoing, we respectfully demand:

A. Immediate intervention by the Inspector-General of Police and the Commissioner of Police, Oyo State Command.

B. An impartial, thorough and independent investigation into the allegation against Bayo.

C. Immediate protection of the five-year-old child and his family from intimidation, pressure, retaliation or further harm.

D. A proper investigation into any alleged attempt to settle or compromise the matter privately.

E. Investigation of every police officer or other person involved in any attempt to suppress, compromise or improperly interfere with the matter.

F. Appropriate disciplinary and/or legal action against any person found to have engaged in misconduct or unlawful interference.

G. Prompt prosecution of the suspect if the investigation establishes sufficient evidence to support a criminal charge.

H. Appropriate communication to the complainant and the human-rights organisation concerning the steps being taken to ensure that the matter is properly investigated and is not improperly compromised.

CONCLUSION

The alleged victim in this matter is a five-year-old child. The overriding considerations must therefore be the protection of the child, the preservation of evidence, the integrity of the investigation and the proper administration of criminal justice.

We strongly urge the Nigeria Police Force, the Police Service Commission and all other relevant authorities not to allow the alleged relationship between the suspect and a serving police officer to undermine the investigation or create an impression that persons connected to the Police Force are subject to a different standard of justice.

Bayo, if found culpable following a lawful investigation and trial, must face the consequences prescribed by law.

Likewise, any police officer or other person who abuses his or her position to obstruct, suppress or improperly interfere with the investigation should be held accountable in accordance with the law.

Our organisation remains committed to the protection of children, the defence of human rights and the promotion of accountability, equality before the law and access to justice.

We trust that this petition will receive the urgent attention that the seriousness of the allegation demands.

Thank you.

E-Signed
6th October, 2026
S.A Tadese ESQ
Director General
THURIST-Nigeria


Police Public Relations Department Imo State Command
Nigeria Police Force Office of The Grand Chief Imam Of Oyoland

04/10/2026

TA’AWUNU HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE (THURIST)
A HUMAN RIGHTS & ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION BODY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CARE, CUSTODY, WELFARE, EDUCATION, MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS TO TWO MINOR CHILDREN

ADR REFERENCE NO.: THURIST/ADR/IW/10/52/09/26

BETWEEN:

MRS. SALMON SUKURAT……………………………………………….PETITIONER
AND
MR. OLALEYE ADELOYIN……………………………………………RESPONDENT

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) AWARD

Short Summary of the ADR Award

The THURIST ADR Panel considered the custody, welfare, education and maintenance of two children, aged 12 and 6, following the separation of their parents, Mrs. Salmon Sukurat and Mr. Olaleye Adeloyin.

Decision:
1. Primary residential custody is granted to Mrs. Salmon Sukurat, with the children continuing to reside principally with her in Iwo.

2. Mr. Olaleye Adeloyin remains a parent with full parental responsibility and retains reasonable access to the children.

3. The father shall reasonably contribute to the children's education, healthcare, feeding, clothing and other essential needs, according to his financial capacity.

4. The father shall have reasonable weekend, holiday, festive and telephone/video access to the children.

5. Neither parent shall use the children to continue their personal disputes, expose them to allegations, insults, threats or violence, or make them choose sides.

6. Custody does not automatically pass to the father because of the children's age or because he is the father. The overriding consideration is always the welfare and best interests of the children.

7. The children should maintain a meaningful relationship with both parents, subject to their welfare and safety.

8. Neither parent may unilaterally remove the children from the established residential arrangement.

In one sentence:
The mother has primary residential custody, the father retains full parental rights and reasonable access, and both parents must jointly prioritise the children's welfare, education, maintenance and emotional stability above their personal differences.

04/10/2026

A MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE IS NOT A LICENCE TO COMMIT CRIME

02/10/2026

SEXUAL ASSAULT, RESULTING PREGNANCY AND ABANDONMENT
#

28/09/2026

Sunday Igboho apologize to Muslim on the incident involving Tani Olohun. Assure Muslims that Iru Ekun is for all the People of Yorubaland.

24/09/2026

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (MAHKAMO)
TA’AWUNU HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE (THURIST)

“The Voiceless Deserve a Voice”
MAHKAMO – COMMUNITY-BASED DISPUTE RESOLUTION CENTRE

OUR SERVICES
MAHKAMO provides accessible, peaceful and structured Alternative Dispute Resolution services for individuals, families, businesses and community members.

Our services include:
1. Mediation
Assisting disputing parties to communicate, identify the issues in dispute and voluntarily reach a mutually acceptable settlement.

2. Reconciliation
Facilitating peaceful reconciliation between parties, particularly in family, marital, community and interpersonal disputes.

3. Negotiation
Assisting parties to negotiate practical terms and solutions without unnecessary confrontation or litigation.

4. Family & Marital Dispute Resolution
Mediation and reconciliation in appropriate matrimonial and family disputes, including disagreements between spouses, relatives and family members.

5. Land & Property Disputes
Facilitating settlement of appropriate disputes involving land boundaries, ownership claims, possession, allocation, trespass and related property disagreements.

6. Tenancy & Landlord–Tenant Disputes
Assisting landlords and tenants to resolve disputes concerning rent, possession, tenancy obligations, repairs, arrears and other appropriate tenancy disagreements.

7. Contract & Business Disputes
Mediation of appropriate commercial and contractual disagreements between individuals, businesses, partners and organisations.

8. Community Disputes
Facilitating dialogue and peaceful settlement of disputes involving neighbours, community members, associations and other local stakeholders.

9. Debt & Financial Disputes
Assisting parties to negotiate repayment arrangements and settlement of appropriate debt and financial disagreements.

10. Settlement Documentation
Where parties reach an agreement, MAHKAMO may assist in documenting the agreed terms in an appropriate settlement or undertaking, subject to applicable law.

11. Pre-Litigation Mediation
Providing an opportunity for parties to explore settlement before commencing or escalating civil litigation.

12. Referral & Legal Assistance
Where a matter is unsuitable for ADR or requires intervention by a court, police, government agency or other competent authority, MAHKAMO may facilitate appropriate referral.

OUR APPROACH
Listen → Mediate → Reconcile → Resolve → Document

MAHKAMO seeks to provide a safe and respectful environment where parties can be heard, understand each other's concerns and work towards a lawful and sustainable resolution.

IMPORTANT NOTICE
MAHKAMO does not replace the courts or statutory law-enforcement and regulatory authorities. Participation in ADR does not prevent a party from seeking appropriate legal or statutory remedies where the law permits.

Matters involving serious criminal allegations, immediate threats to life or safety, child protection concerns, or other matters unsuitable for private settlement shall be handled or referred in accordance with applicable law.

OUR MISSION
To build peaceful communities where disputes are resolved through dialogue, justice, reconciliation and respect for human rights.

TA’AWUNU HUMAN RIGHTS INITIATIVE (THURIST)
Human Rights & Alternative Dispute Resolution Body

“Your Rights Matter.”
“No One Is Free Until All Are Free.”
fans The GRAND MUFTI of Yorubaland
Five Pillars Media Limited
Office of The Grand Chief Imam Of Oyoland
GRAND MUFTI TV Ta'awunu Human Rights Initiative THURIST

21/09/2026

LESSONS LEARNT FROM UBA LTD. V. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD. (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 79) 662

UBA LTD. v. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD.
Citation: (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 79) 662
Court: Supreme Court of Nigeria
Suit No.: SC.31/1987
Date: 27 May 1988
Appellant: United Bank for Africa Ltd.
Respondent: Tejumola & Sons Ltd.
Subject: Contract — Agreement for lease — Offer and acceptance — “Subject to contract” — Commencement date of lease.

THE FACTS: UBA LTD. V. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD.
Tejumola & Sons Ltd. owned a property in Lagos which United Bank for Africa Ltd. (UBA) intended to lease for banking purposes.
The parties exchanged correspondence concerning a proposed 15-year lease, including the rent, proposed commencement date, and alterations required to make the premises suitable for banking operations.

The negotiations were expressed to be “subject to contract.”
TEJUMOLA alleged that the parties had agreed that the lease would commence on 1 May 1982 and, relying on the arrangement, incurred expenses preparing and modifying the property.
UBA, however, maintained that no final and binding lease had been concluded because important matters—particularly the commencement date and other contractual details—remained unresolved.

On 28 October 1982, UBA informed Tejumola that it was no longer interested in taking the property on lease.
TEJUMOLA SUED UBA for damages for breach of contract. The High Court found in Tejumola’s favour, but UBA appealed. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which held that there was no concluded and enforceable contract between the parties, allowed UBA’s appeal, and dismissed the claim.

CENTRAL FACT: The dispute arose because one party treated the negotiations as a completed lease agreement, while the other treated them as an unfinished transaction still subject to formal contract.

THE CASE IN ONE LEGAL PROPOSITION
The case can be reduced to this proposition:
Where parties negotiating a lease have not reached agreement on an essential term, particularly the commencement date, and their dealings remain “subject to contract,” there is no concluded and enforceable agreement for lease.
That is the central lesson of UBA Ltd. v. Tejumola & Sons Ltd.

Why the case is important
For legal practice, the case is particularly useful when dealing with:
1. land sale negotiations;
2. tenancy and lease agreements;
3. letters of offer;
4. memoranda of understanding;
5. “subject to contract” clauses;
6. claims for breach of an alleged agreement;
7. preliminary negotiations;
8. certainty of contractual terms; and
9. situations where one party spends money in anticipation of a contract.
A caution: the case should not be cited as saying that every document marked “subject to contract” is automatically incapable of creating liability in every circumstance. The effect depends on the wording of the documents and the parties' intention viewed in context. The Supreme Court's decision turned significantly on the absence of agreement on the commencement date and the “subject to contract” language.

LESSONS LEARNT FROM UBA LTD. V. TEJUMOLA & SONS LTD. (1988) 2 NWLR (PT. 79) 662
The case teaches several important lessons in Nigerian contract and property law:
1. Negotiation is not the same as a concluded contract.
Parties may exchange letters, agree on some terms, and even begin preparations without becoming legally bound.
2. Essential terms must be certain.
In a lease, matters such as the property, duration, rent, and commencement date must be agreed or sufficiently ascertainable.
3. “Subject to contract” is a serious legal expression.
It generally means that the parties do not intend to be finally bound until the formal agreement is concluded.
4. Do not spend substantial money before the agreement is perfected.
Tejumola incurred expenses in anticipation of the transaction, but expenditure alone did not establish a binding contract.
5. Courts will not create a contract for parties.
A court interprets the bargain the parties actually made; it cannot supply an essential term that was never agreed.
6. The entire correspondence must be examined.
A court must consider all letters, documents, and conduct—not merely one favourable sentence.
7. A party’s sympathy does not replace legal requirements.
Even where one party suffers hardship, the court must still apply the law.
8. Always document the exact date of commencement.
In leases and land transactions, uncertainty about when the agreement begins can destroy an otherwise promising transaction.

Practical lesson for lawyers and clients
Never assume that an agreement is legally binding merely because negotiations are advanced, money has been spent, or the parties have reached a preliminary understanding. Ensure that all essential terms are agreed and that the parties clearly express their intention to be legally bound.

In one sentence:
UBA v. Tejumola teaches that a promise to enter into a contract is not necessarily the contract itself.

Legal facts of the case
1. Tejumola & Sons Ltd. owned a property at 3 Docemo Street/42 Idumagbo Avenue, Lagos, which it proposed to lease to United Bank for Africa Ltd. (UBA).
2. On 19 April 1982, UBA wrote to Tejumola offering to take the property on lease for 15 years, subject to stated terms and conditions. The proposed lease was expressly connected with further contractual arrangements.
3. The parties exchanged correspondence concerning the proposed lease. UBA requested various structural alterations and improvements to the premises to make it suitable for banking operations, and Tejumola undertook some of those works.
4. A major dispute arose concerning the commencement date of the proposed lease. Tejumola contended that the lease had effectively commenced on 1 May 1982, while UBA maintained that negotiations had not resulted in a concluded and binding lease.
5. UBA subsequently carried out inspections and raised concerns about the structural suitability of the premises. The parties continued discussions and further alterations were contemplated.
6. On 28 October 1982, UBA wrote to Tejumola stating that, after consideration, it was no longer interested in taking the lease and effectively withdrew from the transaction.
7. Tejumola consequently instituted an action in the High Court of Lagos State, claiming ₦2,000,000 as special and general damages for breach of contract.
8. The High Court found in favour of Tejumola and awarded damages. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, leading UBA to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Central legal issue
The crucial question before the Supreme Court was essentially:
Whether the correspondence and conduct of the parties had resulted in a concluded and legally enforceable lease agreement, or whether the parties were still merely negotiating a proposed lease.
The case is therefore particularly important on offer and acceptance, certainty of contractual terms, “subject to contract,” and when negotiations become a binding contract.

Important legal principle
The case is commonly cited for the proposition that there must be a concluded agreement containing the essential terms before a contract, particularly a lease, can be enforceable. The Supreme Court examined the parties' correspondence as a whole rather than relying on one isolated document.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED/REINFORCED
The case is useful for the following Nigerian contract-law principles:
1. An agreement must be concluded before it becomes enforceable
Parties may negotiate extensively without creating a binding contract.
2. Essential terms must be agreed
A court will not ordinarily invent an essential term that the parties themselves have not agreed upon.
3. Commencement date is material in a lease
The commencement date must be certain or ascertainable.
4. “Subject to contract” has legal significance
The expression generally indicates that the parties intend to remain unbound until a formal contract is executed.
5. Correspondence can constitute a contract
A contract need not necessarily appear in one document.
Several documents may be read together.
However, those documents must collectively establish the essential terms and demonstrate an intention to be legally bound.
6. Courts examine the whole transaction
The court should consider the correspondence and surrounding circumstances rather than taking one sentence or document in isolation.
7. Parties must be ad idem
There must be a meeting of minds on the essential terms of the bargain.
8. Conduct cannot automatically cure absence of agreement
The fact that one party has incurred expenditure or taken preparatory steps does not necessarily establish that a binding contract exists.
9. The Statute of Frauds/legislation concerning contracts for leases
The judgment considered section 5 of the Law Reform (Contracts) Law of Lagos State, Cap. 66, which was relevant to the formal requirements of agreements concerning land/leases.

-S. A. TADESE ESQ.,