Outrage as NSCDC shields officers accused of assaulting lawyer in Kwara

By Balikis Ola Akande

Public outrage is growing over the refusal of the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), Kwara State Command, to produce two of its officers accused of assaulting a legal practitioner, despite repeated court orders and mounting pressure from members of the legal community in Kwara State.

The case, Aladodo Abdullateef Nurudeen, Esq. v. Ajayi Williams Gbolahan & Busari B. Babatunde, is currently before a Magistrate Court sitting in Ilorin.

The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ilorin Branch, is prosecuting the matter in what it describes as a move to uphold the dignity of the legal profession and ensure accountability.

The two NSCDC officers, Ajayi Williams Gbolahan and Busari B. Babatunde, are accused of assaulting legal practitioner, Aladodo Abdullateef Nurudeen, while he was carrying out his professional duties.

The matter first came up for mention on April 15, 2026, before Her Worship, Chief Magistrate Adebayo Maryam Qudus Dupe.

Although the complainant and members of the prosecution team were present in court, the two defendants were absent and had no legal representation.

Leading the prosecution, Prof. D.A. Ariyoosu informed the court that several attempts to serve the defendants through the police officer attached to the court had failed.

According to him, efforts to reach the officers directly were unsuccessful, prompting the prosecution to seek an alternative means of service.

The prosecution subsequently applied for substituted service by pasting the originating court processes at the entrance gate of the NSCDC Kwara State Command headquarters in Ilorin.

Prof. Ariyoosu further urged the court to compel the Kwara State Commandant of the NSCDC to produce the two officers at the next adjourned date.

The court granted both applications and adjourned the matter for further proceedings.

However, despite the court order reportedly being duly served on the NSCDC command, the officers were not produced at the next hearing.

When the matter resumed on May 4, 2026, the two defendants again failed to appear before the court and were still not represented by counsel.

Addressing the court, Prof. Ariyoosu stated that the NSCDC Kwara State Commandant had failed to comply with the subsisting order directing him to produce the officers.

He consequently applied for a warrant of arrest against the two defendants.

The prosecution also sought an order summoning the NSCDC commandant to appear before the court and show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for allegedly disobeying a valid court order.

Counsel representing the NSCDC commandant, M.M. Kolo, apologised to the court over the inability of the command to produce the officers.

Kolo told the court that only the first defendant, Ajayi Williams Gbolahan, could be officially identified by the command.

He further claimed that the officer had absconded following disciplinary proceedings reportedly initiated against him by the NSCDC authorities.

On the second defendant, Busari B. Babatunde, the defence counsel claimed that the command could not officially identify him.

The explanation drew concern among lawyers present in court, especially as the prosecution maintained that both officers were known personnel of the NSCDC involved in the alleged assault.

Following arguments from both parties, the court granted the prosecution’s applications, including the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the defendants and summons against the commandant.

The matter was thereafter adjourned to May 13, 2026.

At the resumed hearing on May 13, the controversy surrounding the case deepened as the defendants again failed to appear in court and were not represented.

The NSCDC commandant also failed to honour the summons issued against him by the court.

Instead, the Deputy Commandant of the NSCDC Kwara State Command appeared before the court on behalf of the command.

Leading the prosecution team at the sitting, J.S. Muhammad, Esq., informed the court that the commandant had still failed to comply with the directive ordering the production of the officers.

He argued that no satisfactory explanation had been provided for the continued disobedience of the court order.

Muhammad urged the court to proceed with contempt proceedings against the commandant, insisting that the authority of the court must be respected.

Appearing for the NSCDC commandant, Seun Adebanjo, Esq. and M.M. Kolo, Esq. explained that the court order was served after official working hours on the previous day.

They further informed the court that the commandant was in Abuja attending a national security training programme and was therefore unable to appear.

The defence maintained its earlier position that only one of the defendants could be officially identified and reiterated that the officer had absconded.

Counsel, however, undertook before the court that the commandant would personally appear on the next adjourned date.

After listening to submissions from both the prosecution and defence, the court adjourned the matter to May 20, 2026, for further mention and possible continuation of contempt proceedings against the NSCDC commandant.

The NBA Ilorin Branch has continued to maintain a strong position on the matter, insisting that no assault, intimidation or harassment of a lawyer in the course of professional duty should go unpunished.

The branch said the prosecution is aimed at ensuring accountability and protecting the integrity of the legal profession.

The NBA also disclosed that it is considering additional legal measures against the NSCDC and the officers involved, including the enforcement of the fundamental rights of the assaulted lawyer.

Members of the legal community in Ilorin have continued to express concern over what many describe as a deliberate attempt by the NSCDC Kwara State Command to shield the accused officers from prosecution.

Several lawyers who monitored proceedings said the repeated absence of the defendants, despite court orders and summons, raises serious questions about compliance with judicial authority and institutional accountability.