The Ogun Magistrate’s Court 1, sitting in Sagamu, Sagamu Local Government Area of the state, and presided over by Magistrate Olufunilayo Somefun, has adjourned the trial of the driver of the Lexus SUV involved in former heavyweight boxing champion Anthony Joshua’s road crash to June 2, 2026.

This is about the fourth time the case has been adjourned to allow the prosecuting team to file a fresh charge to the existing information on the case.

The defendant, Adeniyi Mobolaji, was charged with four counts, which include allegations of dangerous driving causing death.

Mobolaji was charged with allegations of reckless and negligent driving, contrary to Section 6(1) of the same Act, driving without due care and attention, causing bodily harm, and damage to property, contrary to Section 7(1) of the Act.

He was also accused of driving without a valid national driver’s licence, contrary to Section 10(1) of the Federal Highway Act.

Giving her ruling on the request for an adjournment by the prosecution counsel, G. O. Ogunyomi, the presiding magistrate, Olufunilayo Somefun, adjourned the case to June 92 for proper hearing , which was not objected to by the defence counsel.

Speaking shortly after the proceeding, the counsel to the defendant, Abiodun Olalekan, said the development was to ensure justice for all parties involved in the matter.

The 46-year-old driver was involved in the fatal accident that claimed the lives of Joshua’s personal trainer, Latif Ayodele, and strength and conditioning coach, Sina Ghami, along the busy Lagos-Ibadan Expressway on December 29, 2025.

The Lexus SUV collided with a stationary truck, leaving Joshua and the driver with minor injuries.

The boxing champion was later discharged from the hospital after being deemed clinically fit to continue his recovery at home.

Ghami and Ayodele’s demise sent shockwaves across the international boxing community.

The deceased associates were widely regarded as central figures in Joshua’s camp.

Their remains were later flown back to the United Kingdom, where a funeral prayer service was held on January 4, 2026, at the London Central Mosque.

The Department of State Services (DSS) has re-arraigned a former Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and his son, Abdulaziz, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, Abuja, on an amended charge bordering on alleged terrorism and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

At the hearing, counsel to the DSS, Akinlolu Kehinde (SAN), informed the court that an amended charge had been filed to replace the earlier one on which the defendants were initially arraigned.

Kehinde subsequently applied to withdraw the earlier charge and requested that the amended charge be read to the defendants for their pleas to be taken afresh.

Counsel to the defendants, Shaibu Aruwa (SAN), confirmed that his clients had been served with the amended charge and did not object to it being read in court.

Malami and his son are alleged to have, in December 2025, prepared to commit acts of terrorism by unlawfully possessing a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges without a licence.

Parts of the amended charge read:

“That you, Abubakar Malami, adult male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult male, sometime in December 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did engage in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession, without a licence, a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges, thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 29 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

“That you, Abubakar Malami, adult male, and Abdulaziz Abubakar Malami, adult male, sometime in December 2025, at Geeze Phase II Area, Birnin Kebbi LGA, Kebbi State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did conspire among yourselves in preparation to commit acts of terrorism by having in your possession, without a licence, a Sturm Magnum 17–0101 firearm, 16 Redstar AAA 5.20 live cartridges, and 27 expended Redstar cartridges, contrary to Section 26(1) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022 and punishable under Section 26(3)(a) and (b) of the same Act.”

Upon the reading of the charges, both defendants pleaded not guilty, prompting the DSS counsel to request a date for the commencement of trial.

The defence counsel did not oppose the request for trial dates but urged the court to allow the defendants to continue on the bail earlier granted to them, having fulfilled the conditions.

With no objection from the prosecution, Justice Abdulmalik ordered that the defendants remain on the bail earlier granted on February 27, having met the stipulated conditions.

The court subsequently adjourned the matter to May 26 and June 15 for trial.

The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has restrained the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) from enforcing parts of its newly issued Digital, Electronic, Online and Non-Traditional Consumer Lending Regulations, 2025, pending the determination of a substantive application before the court.

Justice Ambrose Lewis-Allagoa granted the interim injunction following an ex parte motion filed by the Wireless Application Service Providers Association of Nigeria (WASPA Nigeria), which is challenging the legality and implementation of the regulations.

The association approached the court on April 14, 2026, seeking urgent judicial intervention to halt the enforcement of key provisions of the regulatory framework, popularly referred to as the “DEON Consumer Lending Regulations.”

In a ruling delivered after hearing submissions from counsel to the applicant, Kemi Pinheiro, SAN, alongside Bolu Agbaje Akadri, Esq., and Muyiwa Odubela, Esq., the court held that the applicant had established a case warranting interim protection pending further hearing.

WASPA Nigeria, in its application, argued that the FCCPC’s regulations would adversely affect its members, who operate within Nigeria’s digital and online consumer lending ecosystem.

The group sought to prevent the commission from implementing, enforcing, or taking any steps under the disputed regulations until the court determines the legality of the framework.

Specifically, the association urged the court to restrain the FCCPC from enforcing various provisions of the regulations, including paragraphs 3, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 24, 27, 29, and 32. It also asked the court to stop the commission from imposing sanctions, penalties, or fines on its members, as well as from issuing directives that could affect their operations.

After considering the ex parte motion and the supporting affidavit sworn to by Ayo Stuffman, a Nigerian citizen residing in Lagos, Justice Lewis-Allagoa held that an interim order of injunction was justified in the circumstances.

The court accordingly restrained the FCCPC from enforcing or giving effect to the contested provisions of the regulations, pending the hearing and determination of the motion on notice for an interlocutory injunction.

The judge also barred the commission from taking any steps that would interfere with or prevent WASPA members from continuing to provide services or products regulated under the framework.

Additionally, the FCCPC was restrained from imposing any sanctions or penalties on the association’s members arising from alleged non-compliance with the regulations.

In the same vein, the court prohibited the commission from issuing any further orders or directives relating to the implementation or enforcement of the disputed regulatory framework.

The matter has been adjourned to April 27, 2026, for hearing of the substantive application.

The order marks a significant temporary setback for the FCCPC, which recently introduced the regulations as part of efforts to strengthen oversight of Nigeria’s rapidly expanding digital lending and fintech ecosystem.

The framework was designed to address consumer protection concerns, data privacy issues, and unregulated lending practices in the sector.

However, stakeholders in the digital services and lending space have continued to raise concerns about the scope and potential impact of the regulations on innovation, compliance costs, and operational freedom.

With the interim injunction now in place, attention will shift to the next hearing date, where the court is expected to consider arguments on whether the restraining order should be extended or lifted pending the full determination of the suit.