Bobrisky enjoyed extraordinary privileges not permitted in law while in custody - Panel report
Home - News

Bobrisky enjoyed extraordinary privileges not permitted in law while in custody - Panel report

today

Bobrisky enjoyed extraordinary privileges not permitted in law while in custody - Panel report

Admin By Adewale Adewale
  • 47
  • 4 min
  • 0

An independent investigative panel established by the Federal Government to examine allegations surrounding the incarceration of crossdresser and social media personality, Okuneye Idris Olanrewaju, popularly known as Bobrisky, has concluded that he received extraordinary privileges while in custody.

The privileges, the investigators said, were far beyond what is permitted under Nigerian correctional regulations.

The panel also recommended the prosecution of social media activist Martins Vincent Otse, popularly known as VeryDarkMan (VDM), over alleged data privacy violations, libel, and incitement.

Bobrisky was convicted on April 12, 2024, and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment for abuse of the naira.

He completed his sentence and was released on August 5, 2024.

The controversy began shortly after Bobrisky’s release when VeryDarkMan published an audio recording purportedly featuring a conversation involving Bobrisky.

In the recording, Bobrisky claimed to have paid N15 million to officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to drop money laundering charges against him. 

He also allegedly stated that he bribed officials of the Nigerian Correctional Service (NCoS) to enable him serve his sentence outside prison custody.

The allegations generated widespread public concern, prompting the Minister of Interior, Dr. Olubunmi Tunji-Ojo, to establish an investigative panel on September 30, chaired by the Ministry’s Permanent Secretary, Magdalena Ajani.

According to the panel’s report, Bobrisky enjoyed exceptional privileges at both the Medium Security and Maximum Security Custodial Centres in Kirikiri, Lagos.

At the Medium Security Custodial Centre, he was reportedly accommodated in a private cell equipped with a personal toilet and bathroom, carpet, television, refrigerator, humidifier, and enhanced lighting.

The report further stated that he was placed on self-feeding arrangements, allowing family members to supply meals. 

He also received unrestricted visits from relatives and friends.

At the Maximum Security Custodial Centre, the panel found that his accommodation included decorative wallpaper, a large bed, carpeting, a humidifier, and a television in an adjoining room. 

A fellow inmate was also reportedly assigned to cater to his personal needs.

The panel noted that visits to Bobrisky were often conducted within the office of the officer-in-charge of the facility—an arrangement not ordinarily available to inmates.

Additionally, he was reportedly transported between facilities in the official vehicle of the Lagos State Controller of Corrections and accompanied by senior correctional officials.

One of the panel’s most significant findings concerned the alleged use of mobile phones in custody, which is prohibited under correctional regulations.

Investigators also discovered that Bobrisky’s cell, identified as Room A12 at the Maximum Security Custodial Centre, had a soundproofed door unlike others in the facility.

The panel recommended further investigation into the purpose of the modification, noting that it remained unclear whether the soundproofing was related to phone use or other activities.

The panel recommended that the Department of State Services (DSS) investigate allegations that Bobrisky, directly or through intermediaries, bribed officials of the EFCC or NCoS. 

If substantiated, it advised that appropriate anti-corruption charges be filed.

It also recommended that the Nigerian Correctional Service consider legal action against Bobrisky for allegedly making claims that damaged the institution’s reputation. 

Concerning VeryDarkMan, the panel recommended possible prosecution under relevant provisions of the Criminal Code and the Cybercrimes Act.

According to the report, investigators should determine whether the activist unlawfully intercepted private communications and whether his dissemination of the audio recording violated data privacy laws.

The panel further argued that if the allegations are proven, he could face charges relating to libel, incitement, and unlawful interception of communications.

Prev Post

Next Post

Gunmen kill 20 in Kebbi community

Newsletter

Get every weekly update & insights

Comment(s) 0

Leave a Reply

BACK TO TOP