Petitioner accuses senior police officials of suppressing legal advice recommending prosecution over alleged forgery, money laundering, diversion of taxpayer funds and fraudulent tax collection scheme
By A1NEWS International – June 25, 2026
ABUJA, Nigeria — Serious allegations have emerged against senior officials at the Nigeria Police Force Headquarters following claims that an investigation report and legal opinion recommending the prosecution of officials linked to the Joint Tax Board (JTB), Plateau State Government agencies and other suspects have allegedly been withheld despite findings establishing a prima facie case of fraud-related offences.
The allegations, which have sparked concerns among anti-corruption advocates and legal observers, centre on claims that a completed police investigation into alleged illegal tax collection operations, forgery of government revenue documents, money laundering and diversion of public funds has failed to proceed to prosecution despite recommendations from the Force Legal Department.
At the centre of the controversy is the Principal Staff Officer to the Inspector-General of Police, CSP Lateef Ahmed, who has been accused by the complainant of frustrating action on the case file and legal advice issued by senior police legal authorities.
The allegations have not been independently verified by A1NEWS International, and police authorities have yet to publicly respond to the claims.
Origins of the Investigation
The matter originated from a petition submitted to former Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, on March 19, 2024.
The petitioner, Solomon Osagie, alleged that motorists across Nigeria were subjected to illegal interstate road sticker levies through arrangements allegedly involving the Joint Tax Board and a contractor identified as Citiserve Limited.
According to the petition, funds generated through the collection process were allegedly diverted into private accounts through the use of questionable revenue collection mechanisms and allegedly forged receipts.
The allegations prompted an extensive investigation by multiple police formations.
Investigation Moved Across Several Police Units
Documents and sources familiar with the matter indicate that the case passed through various police investigative departments, including the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), the Inspector-General of Police Monitoring Unit, and later the Police Special Investigation Unit (PSIU).
Sources alleged that the movement of the case across different departments was accompanied by repeated attempts to frustrate investigations.
One police officer, ASP Sule Danjuma, was specifically mentioned in allegations claiming interference in the investigation process.
According to sources, Danjuma allegedly arrested the petitioner despite being the complainant in the matter.
The petitioner further alleged intimidation, harassment and unlawful detention during the period investigations were ongoing.
Although claims have emerged that disciplinary findings were made against some officers connected to aspects of the investigation, official police records confirming such actions have not been publicly released.
Force Legal Department Recommends Prosecution
A major development in the matter reportedly came on May 19, 2025, when the Directorate of Legal Services at Force Headquarters completed its review of the investigation file.
According to documents cited by sources familiar with the case, the legal opinion concluded that sufficient evidence existed to prosecute several suspects.
Among those reportedly recommended for prosecution are:
- Jim Pam Wayas
- Samuel N. Dapiya
- Makplang Daniel John
- Leo Densak
- Samuel Emeka Esomonu
The legal advice also reportedly recommended criminal proceedings against another suspect, Ucheptse Daniel, for alleged obstruction of police officers during the course of investigations.
According to the legal opinion, investigators established prima facie evidence relating to:
- Criminal conspiracy
- Forgery
- Fraudulent diversion of taxpayer funds
- Money laundering
- Economic sabotage
- Misappropriation of public funds
- Abuse of office
The Directorate reportedly advised that the original case file be forwarded for prosecution.
Alleged Discovery of Forged Revenue Documents
One of the most significant findings emerging from the investigation reportedly relates to revenue receipts allegedly used in tax collection activities.
Investigators allegedly discovered that some receipts purportedly linked to the Joint Tax Board and said to have originated from the Nigeria Security Printing and Minting Company Plc contained irregularities.
According to findings referenced in the investigation, several receipts and revenue stickers reportedly carried identical identification numbers rather than the unique serial numbers expected on official government revenue documents.
Investigators allegedly traced some of the recovered receipt booklets to individuals involved in the revenue collection process.
Sources familiar with the case said the findings formed a critical component of allegations relating to forged government revenue materials and possible diversion of public funds.
Petitioner Raises Alarm Over Delayed Prosecution
In a letter dated June 8, 2026, addressed to the Inspector-General of Police through his legal representatives, the petitioner accused senior police authorities of deliberately delaying prosecution despite the completion of investigations and issuance of legal advice.
The letter questioned why the police had allegedly failed to act on prosecution recommendations while also declining requests for Certified True Copies of investigation reports and related documents.
According to the petitioner’s lawyers, multiple requests made under the Freedom of Information Act have allegedly gone unanswered.
The petitioner further claimed that failure to release the documents has hindered efforts to pursue additional legal remedies and accountability measures.
Allegation of Political Interference
Another sensitive dimension of the controversy involves allegations that efforts may have been made to influence the outcome of the investigation.
According to claims contained in correspondence submitted by the petitioner, remarks allegedly made during an interview session suggested that political intervention could be sought to halt or influence the investigation.
These allegations remain unproven and have not been independently corroborated.
However, the claims have intensified concerns among transparency advocates who argue that law enforcement investigations must remain insulated from political pressure.
Plateau Government’s Counter-Petition
The dispute appears to have evolved into a broader legal and administrative confrontation.
The Plateau State Government reportedly submitted a separate petition against the petitioner and a tax consulting firm, alleging that the company continued revenue collection activities after the expiration and termination of its contractual engagement.
The state government allegedly declared the company and its principal officers persona non grata and requested police intervention.
The petitioner, however, maintains that the counter-petition was intended to divert attention from the original allegations involving revenue collection practices.
Questions Await Official Answers
Several critical questions remain unresolved:
- Why has prosecution allegedly not commenced despite legal advice recommending criminal charges?
- Were investigative findings properly reviewed by police authorities?
- Have requests for official documents been deliberately delayed or withheld?
- Did political considerations influence the handling of the case?
- What action, if any, has been taken regarding alleged misconduct by officers connected to the investigation?
Repeated attempts by journalists to obtain responses from police officials mentioned in the allegations reportedly yielded no official comment before publication.
The controversy surrounding the alleged suppression of an investigation involving tax collection practices, forgery allegations and public revenue management raises broader questions about transparency, accountability and the independence of criminal investigations in Nigeria.
While legal recommendations reportedly exist calling for prosecution, the matter remains unresolved amid accusations of interference, delayed action and institutional obstruction.
As public scrutiny grows, attention will increasingly focus on whether police authorities will release the disputed documents, act on the legal advice already issued and clarify the status of a case that has generated significant public interest.
Until official responses are provided and the allegations tested through due process, many of the claims remain matters requiring further investigation and verification.
Leave a Reply