Why Police refused to release or arraign Speed Darlington in court

• Nigerian activist and lawyer Deji Adeyanju has given update on Speed Darlington’s case.
• Adeyanju claimed the police are unjustly detaining Speed Darlington, citing a false narrative that he fled to the US after being released from custody.
• He averred that the police have refused to release or present Speed Darlington before a judge for trial. 

Nigerian activist and lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, has expressed concern over the handling of Speed Darlington’s case by the Nigeria Police Force.

According to Adeyanju, the police have refused to release Speed Darlington or present him before a judge for trial.

He stated that their justification for this is based on an unfounded claim that the last time they released the artist from their custody, Speed Darlington traveled to the United States without returning.

Adeyanju clarified that this narrative is false, emphasizing that they informed the police of Speed Darlington’s trip to the U.S. and his intention to return.

He also disclosed that all necessary legal steps have been taken regarding Speed Darlington’s case, but the case hasn’t been assigned by court.

In his words:

“The @PoliceNG @PoliceNG_CRU have refused to release Speed Darlington or take him before a judge to face trial on the childish excuse that the last time they released him to me, he travelled to the US. This narrative is false because we told them he was going to US to return.

We have done the needful on speed Darlington but the case has not been assigned by the court.”

See his post below:

Reacting to the post,  One @EricChimara wrote: “Even if there was anything like that, is it the right of the police to deny him freedom or the court? I really don’t understand this country.”

@Momonny1 wrote: “Even at that they are duty bound to take him before a judge to take his plea which one is all this the police is doing?”

@JalloWaziri wrote: “We’re not the court! Go and do your “Lawyering” in the court and quit the sensationalism, and you must separate your practice from activism or you risk jeopardizing the essence of your pro Bono activities.”