A recent case at the Mapo Customary Court in Ibadan offers a window into how Nigeria’s legal system handles allegations of violent threats and significant property damage. The proceedings, which resulted in the remand of a 26-year-old man, highlight the interplay between bail, the presumption of innocence, and the specific laws governing such conduct.
On Tuesday, December 16, 2025, the court, presided over by Mrs. S.M. Akintayo, ordered that Kale Mbanu be held in a correctional centre. This decision followed his arraignment on a two-count charge. The first count alleged he made threats to the life of the complainant, Aiyat Abubakar. The second accused him of the malicious damage of a high-value item: an iPhone Pro Max 16, reportedly worth N2.3 million. Mbanu entered a plea of not guilty to both charges, setting the stage for a future trial where the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The alleged incident occurred on the morning of December 6, 2025, on Kolawole Street in the Bodija area of Ibadan, Oyo State. According to the prosecution, led by Inspector Ayodele Ayeni, the confrontation escalated to the point where Mbanu allegedly threatened to stab Abubakar with a knife, following the damage to her phone. This combination of alleged actions—a direct violent threat coupled with the destruction of valuable property—forms the core of the criminal complaint.
In response to the not-guilty plea, the court made a pivotal procedural decision. President Akintayo granted Mbanu bail, setting the amount at N500,000. Crucially, the bail requires two reliable sureties who must each be bound in the same sum. This is a common practice in Nigerian courts, designed to ensure the defendant’s return for trial while upholding his right to liberty pretrial. However, as Mbanu did not immediately meet these conditions, the court remanded him into custody at the correctional centre until he could fulfill them. The case was then adjourned for a substantial period, with a hearing date set for February 15, 2026, allowing time for both sides to prepare their evidence.
The prosecutor cited specific legal foundations for the charges. The alleged offences are said to contravene Sections 86 and 451 of the Criminal Code, Cap. 38, Vol. II, Laws of Oyo State, 2000. While the exact wording of these sections may vary, they typically address the following:
- Threat to Life (Likely Section 86): This often pertains to the crime of “assault,” which in legal terms can include any act that causes a person to reasonably apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. A verbal threat with a knife would squarely fit this definition, as it creates a well-founded fear of physical harm.
- Malicious Damage (Likely Section 451): This section generally deals with willful and unlawful destruction or damage of property. The key element is “malice,” meaning the act was intentional and without lawful excuse. The high stated value of the phone (N2.3 million) could influence the severity of the charge and potential penalties if a conviction is secured.
This case underscores several practical aspects of the justice system. First, it demonstrates that a not-guilty plea triggers a process where bail is considered, but its grant is not automatic freedom—it comes with financial and logistical conditions that can be difficult to meet. Second, the adjournment to 2026 reflects the reality of crowded court dockets and the time needed for proper case preparation. Finally, the specific mention of the phone’s model and value illustrates how the details of an alleged crime are formally recorded, potentially affecting both the gravity of the charge and any future claims for restitution. The outcome now hinges on the evidence presented when the court reconvenes.
Edited by Chinyere Omeire
About Author
