Charge sheet contradicts Oyo police on student’s N8,000 debt death

A 30-year-old polytechnic student and aluminium fixer, Al-Amin Mohammed (also referred to in court papers as Muhammed Aliameen), died by suicide days after his release from custody following a dispute that began with an unpaid N8,000 balance. The Oyo State Police Command has insisted he was never prosecuted over the debt, yet the official charge sheet obtained by Sunday Punch directly undercuts key parts of that defence.

Al-Amin collected N23,000 in cash from a Point-of-Sale centre run by Kazeem Mukaila in the Oni-Gaari, Ayegun area of Ibadan. He repaid N15,000 and left an outstanding N8,000. When repayment lagged, an apprentice identified as Iya Ajike allegedly seized his phone. Al-Amin later returned demanding the device and offering to settle the balance. A scuffle followed.

He was handed to local vigilantes and the next morning taken to Sanyo Police Division. Family members claim the Divisional Crime Officer was friendly with the complainant.

According to the family, officers demanded N100,000 for bail and a further N70,000 for alleged damage to a phone. Al-Amin denied destroying any property. He was arraigned the following day, granted bail of N100,000 with two sureties in like sum, and, unable to meet the conditions immediately, remanded at Agodi Custodial Centre for four days. His parents eventually stood surety and secured his release on or about 14 September. Days later he recorded a voice note for his mother expressing deep humiliation at being punished for an offence he insisted he did not commit. On 17 September he ingested a poisonous substance at his residence in Ibadan and died after being turned away by several hospitals before reaching University College Hospital.

In a statement signed by Public Relations Officer DSP Ayanlade Olayinka, the command described reports linking the death to the N8,000 debt as “false, unfounded and misleading.” Police said the case arose from an alleged assault on the POS operator and malicious damage to an Airtel SIM registration machine valued at N177,000.

They acknowledged the original N23,000 transaction and the unpaid balance but insisted the criminal charge was not for the debt. The command added that community and vigilante attempts at settlement failed, that the complainant insisted on court action, and that Al-Amin’s remand followed his inability to meet court-imposed bail conditions, not any police decision to detain him over N8,000. Police also cautioned against drawing a causal link between the case and the death without independent verification.

The charge sheet (OY/CCGA/MAP/184C/26) presented before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, Ibadan Magisterial District, tells a different story.

It contains two counts. The first alleges conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. There is no count of assault. The second count states that on 8 September 2026 at about 09:50 pm at Oni-Gaari, Ayegun, Al-Amin “did maliciously damage an Android itel phone valued at N177,000.00 only and another N8,000 only debt, property of one Mukaila Kazeem.” The document lists Inspectors Adeboye Olaide and Akinteye Muinat as the investigating officers.

Thus the debt appears expressly in the charge, the damaged item is described as an Itel phone rather than a SIM registration machine, and the offence of assault is absent.

Al-Amin’s father, Habeeb Mohammed, accused officers at Sanyo Division of refusing amicable settlement. He said he and his wife begged the DCO to allow the matter to be resolved, only to be told to produce N100,000 for bail and to persuade their son to admit damaging the phone. When they explained they had no such money, the officer allegedly replied that their son would go to prison. Habeeb claimed they offered an undertaking to pay for repairs in instalments but were rebuffed because Al-Amin would not admit guilt. He further alleged the DCO was acquainted with the POS operator and that the family was not properly informed when their son was taken to court. “The police are responsible for my son’s death over a matter that could have been settled amicably,” he said, adding that the experience left him himself contemplating suicide. He called on the Inspector-General of Police, the Oyo State Government and the Federal Government to investigate the officers involved.

ADVERTISEMENT

Human-rights advocates have raised broader concerns. Activist Bayo Adelani noted the clear discrepancies between the police narrative and the charge sheet—particularly the inclusion of the N8,000 in Count II and the mismatch over the nature of the damaged property. Okechukwu Nwanguma, Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre, warned that the criminal process appeared to have been deployed to enforce a private debt, contrary to Section 32(2) of the Police Act 2020, which prohibits arrest merely for civil wrongs or breach of contract. “Police stations must not become debt-recovery centres,” he said, calling for an independent inquiry rather than institutional self-exoneration.

The case has drawn public attention to the thin line between civil disputes and criminal process in Nigeria, the psychological toll of short-term detention and remand, and the need for transparent handling of allegations against police officers. As of publication, no independent investigation into the conduct of officers at Sanyo Division has been announced.