The Oyo State Police Command has denied that the late Al-Amin Mohammed, who died by suicide after being arraigned and remanded over a dispute involving an N8,000 debt, was prosecuted over the outstanding sum.

The police said the deceased was charged with assault and malicious damage to a machine, insisting that those offences, rather than the debt, formed the basis of his prosecution.

In a statement on Saturday signed by the command’s Public Relations Officer, DSP Ayanlade Olayinka, the police described reports that Al-Amin was detained and charged over the N8,000 debt as “false, unfounded and misleading.”

However, documentary evidence obtained by Sunday PUNCH contradicts key elements of the police account.

The police statement followed an exclusive report by Saturday PUNCH detailing the circumstances surrounding Al-Amin’s death.

The 30-year-old, said to be a polytechnic student in Kwara State, had collected N23,000 from a Point-of-Sale centre owned by one Kazeem Mukaila.

He repaid N15,000 and promised to pay the outstanding N8,000 later.

However, when payment was delayed, Mukaila’s apprentice, identified as Iya Ajike, allegedly seized Al-Amin’s phone.

The deceased later demanded the return of his phone, saying he was ready to transfer the outstanding balance.

This reportedly resulted in a scuffle between the two.

Al-Amin was allegedly handed over to a vigilante before he was taken the following morning to the Sanyo Police Division, where he was detained.

The Divisional Crime Officer at the station was alleged to be a friend of the complainant.

The police subsequently said that, aside from the N8,000 debt, Al-Amin damaged a phone belonging to the PoS operator.

His family alleged that they were asked to provide N100,000 for his bail and another N70,000 for the repair of the phone.

Al-Amin reportedly denied damaging the phone, saying he had no money to pay for it.

After spending time in police custody, he was arraigned the following day and granted bail in the sum of N100,000 with two sureties in like sum.

Unable to immediately meet the bail conditions, he was transferred to the Agodi Custodial Centre, where he spent four days before his parents stood as sureties.

Following his release, Al-Amin allegedly sent a voice note to his mother, saying he could not bear the humiliation of being punished for an offence he maintained he did not commit.

A few days after his release, he allegedly died after ingesting a poisonous substance.

Police account contradicted by charge sheet

In its Saturday reaction, the police confirmed that the dispute originated from a N23,000 transaction, from which N8,000 remained unpaid.

The police spokesman, Olayinka, however, said rather than settle the outstanding balance, Al-Amin went to Iya Ajike’s residence on September 8 at about 10pm, assaulted her and damaged an Airtel SIM registration machine valued at N177,000.

The command said the dispute was brought to the police after efforts by community members and vigilantes to resolve it failed.

“Upon receiving the parties, the police heard from both sides and made a further effort to resolve the matter amicably. However, that intervention also proved unsuccessful, as the complainant insisted on pursuing the case in court.

“Accordingly, having regard to the facts established during investigation and the evidence available, the suspect was charged to court for assault and malicious damage, and not for the outstanding N8,000. The distinction is important, as the criminal proceedings arose from the assault and the damage to the SIM registration machine valued at N177,000.

“Upon arraignment, the court considered the facts and evidence presented and granted the suspect bail. His subsequent remand at the Agodi Correctional Centre resulted from his inability to immediately meet the bail conditions imposed by the court, and not from any police decision to detain him over the N8,000. He was subsequently released upon meeting the conditions.

“In view of these facts, the claim that the police arrested and charged the suspect to court because of his inability to repay N8,000 is false, unfounded and misleading. While the N8,000 constituted the outstanding balance in the antecedent financial transaction, it was not the basis of the criminal charge before the court,” the police said.

However, the charge sheet obtained by Sunday PUNCH tells a different story.

The document, with charge number OY/CCGA/MAP/184C/26, shows that Al-Amin was arraigned on two counts before the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Oyo State, Ibadan Magisterial District.

Contrary to the police statement, assault does not appear in either count.

The first count alleges conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace.

More significantly, although the police denied that the N8,000 debt formed part of the charge, the outstanding sum is expressly mentioned in the second count.

There is another discrepancy: while the police statement referred to a damaged Airtel SIM registration machine valued at N177,000, the charge sheet identified the allegedly damaged property as an Android Itel phone.

The second count reads, “That you, Muhammed Aliameen (Al-Amin), on the 8th day of September, 2026, around 09:50pm, at Oni-Gaari, Ayegun area, Ibadan, in the Ibadan Magisterial District, 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 charge sheet identifies Inspector Adeboye Olaide and Inspector Akinteye Muinat as the investigating police officers in the case.

Victim’s father accuses police

Reacting to the police statement on Saturday, Al-Amin’s father, Habeeb, accused the command of misrepresenting what transpired at the Sanyo Police Division.

Speaking in an emotional voice, Habeeb said he and his wife pleaded with the DCO to allow the dispute to be resolved amicably.

He alleged that they were instead asked to provide N100,000 for bail and persuade their son to accept responsibility for damaging the phone.

“The police are lying. My wife and I begged the DCO at the Sanyo Police Division, but the DCO asked us to bring N100,000 as bail and also tell our son to admit to the crime of destroying the phone,” he said.

Habeeb further alleged that the DCO, whom he described as light-complexioned but whose name he could not recall, ordered him and his wife out of his office after they pleaded for their son to be allowed to settle the dispute.

“He didn’t listen to us because we told him there was nowhere to get the money. He said if we did not have the money, our son would go to prison.

“Even when we went to the DPO, he said that this was a matter that could be settled; that it was not a big deal. When we left the DPO’s office, the DCO was just saying if we couldn’t get the N100,000, our son would be jailed,” he said.

The bereaved father said he offered to sign an undertaking to pay the cost of repairing the phone in instalments, but alleged that the police rejected the proposal.

“They said because our boy would not admit that he was responsible for the damaged phone, they would ensure he was jailed.

“They brought him to the station in the evening, and by the following day, before 10am, he had been taken to court. We were not even informed; just because we are poor and we don’t have anybody. They did this to us because the DCO knows the PoS operator,” he alleged.

Habeeb said the experience had left him devastated.

“In fact, I contemplated suicide myself this morning (Saturday) if not for the people around me.

“It was the jail they took him to that made him commit suicide. The police are responsible for my son’s death over a matter that could have been settled amicably. My son had never been to a police station before. He didn’t fight with anybody. He was a peace-loving boy.”

Habeeb appealed to Nigerians, the Oyo State Government and the Federal Government to intervene.

He also called on the Inspector-General of Police to investigate officers at the Sanyo Police Division, particularly the DCO.

Police have questions to answer – CSOs

A human rights activist, Bayo Adelani, said the documentary evidence raised questions about the police command’s categorical denial that the N8,000 debt featured in the criminal proceedings.

“The police should explain why the N8,000 appeared in Count II of the charge sheet, while the command described the allegation as assault rather than conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace,” he said.

Adelani also questioned the command’s reference to a SIM registration machine when the charge sheet identified the allegedly damaged item as an Android Itel phone.

According to him, the discrepancies are significant because the police statement was issued to refute the central claim that the N8,000 dispute formed part of the circumstances leading to Al-Amin’s arrest and prosecution.

The Executive Director of the Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre, Okechukwu Nwanguma, said the circumstances raised concerns that the criminal process might have been used to enforce a private debt.

“The issue is not merely what label was placed on the counts, but whether the criminal process became an instrument for enforcing a private financial obligation,” he said.

Nwanguma said there were “strong indicators” of possible abuse of police powers for debt recovery, although he stressed that the facts should be independently established.

He cited Section 32(2) of the Police Act 2020, which he said prohibits arrest merely over a civil wrong or breach of contract, arguing that the police could not achieve indirectly through detention, bail conditions or retention of property what the law prohibited them from doing directly.

“Police stations must not become debt-recovery centres, and citizens’ liberty or property must never become bargaining chips for settling private disputes,” he said, calling for an independent investigation rather than what he described as institutional self-exoneration. (Sunday PUNCH)