Ogidi Murder: Police Officer Admits Shooting Was Unjustified as Trial Enters Defence Stage

The trial of five defendants over the death of 28-year-old Mene Ogidi has taken a significant turn after the first defendant, Assistant Superintendent of Police Usman Nuhu, reportedly admitted during investigation that his shooting of Ogidi was unjustified.

The admission was disclosed before the Delta State High Court sitting in Asaba, where the prosecution closed its case on Tuesday after calling six witnesses. The court also heard evidence concerning the post-mortem examination conducted on Ogidi.

Nuhu is standing trial alongside four other defendants over the April 26, 2026 incident in Effurun, Delta State, which resulted in Ogidi’s death.

The development comes months after the Nigeria Police Force itself condemned the shooting, describing it as a violation of established regulations governing the use of firearms and subsequently ordering disciplinary proceedings against the officers involved.

What happened at Effurun?

Ogidi was reportedly apprehended at Effurun Motor Park after a parcel he was attempting to waybill was found to contain a Beretta pistol and four rounds of ammunition.

The discovery led to his arrest and the involvement of police officers attached to the Effurun Area Command.

According to the police’s earlier account, however, the suspect was already under control when Nuhu discharged his firearm in circumstances that violated the applicable rules of engagement.

The police subsequently described the incident as an extra-judicial killing and said no criminal suspicion could justify taking the law into one’s hands.

The case has consequently developed beyond the question of whether Ogidi was suspected of possessing a firearm. The central legal issue now includes what happened after he was apprehended and whether the force used against him was lawful.

Officer’s conflicting accounts

Evidence presented during the trial indicates that Nuhu gave different accounts to investigators.

In one statement, he reportedly said that he shot Ogidi “by error”, while another account stated that he fired the shots “out of anger”.

He subsequently acknowledged that the shooting was not justified.

According to the evidence reported from the proceedings, Nuhu said he fired two rounds at Ogidi and maintained that the other police officers did not conspire with him to shoot the suspect.

The conflicting explanations are likely to form part of the issues that the court will have to examine carefully.

A criminal trial requires the prosecution to establish its case through admissible evidence, while the defendants remain entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence until the court determines otherwise.

More than one shooting alleged

The evidence before the court also suggests that the shooting did not end with the first encounter at the motor park.

Nuhu reportedly told investigators that he initially attempted to fire at Ogidi at Effurun Motor Park but that his rifle failed to discharge.

He then allegedly took Ogidi to the police office, where he shot him again in the right leg.

According to the account presented in court, Area Commander ACP Aliyu Shaba subsequently questioned Nuhu and ordered that Ogidi be taken to Ekpan General Hospital for treatment.

Ogidi was reportedly treated before being returned to the police office, where the Area Commander allegedly ordered that Nuhu be disarmed and detained.

If established by the court, the sequence would be important because it raises questions about the circumstances surrounding the use of force after Ogidi had already been apprehended and taken into police custody.

Other defendants give evidence against Nuhu’s account

The other four defendants reportedly told investigators that Nuhu shot Ogidi without provocation.

They also alleged that he fired at Ogidi again despite the intervention of the Area Commander.

A prosecution witness, identified as Waziri, further told the court that Nuhu’s colleagues had sufficient opportunity to prevent the shooting while he disarmed and reassembled his rifle.

These accounts will now have to be tested through the judicial process.

The court will ultimately have to determine which evidence is credible and what criminal responsibility, if any, can be established against each defendant.

Post-mortem evidence presented

The prosecution also called Dr Clement of Central Hospital, Warri, who gave evidence concerning the post-mortem examination conducted on Ogidi on May 4, 2026.

Medical evidence can be particularly important in a case involving alleged unlawful use of firearms because it may help establish the nature and location of injuries, the cause of death and whether the medical findings are consistent with other evidence presented to the court.

The significance of the evidence will ultimately depend on how it fits with the testimony of witnesses, documentary evidence and other material before the court.

Police had already taken disciplinary action

The latest court proceedings follow disciplinary action taken by the police months earlier.

After investigating the incident, the Nigeria Police Force said its internal disciplinary process found that Nuhu had acted in gross violation of Force Order 237 and other regulations governing the use of firearms.

The Force said the officers found culpable were recommended for dismissal and prosecution, with the recommendations approved by the Inspector-General of Police and forwarded to the Police Service Commission for ratification.

The Police Service Commission subsequently ratified the dismissal, while the case file was forwarded to the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation for prosecution.

The administrative punishment and the criminal trial are separate processes.

Dismissal from the police does not determine criminal guilt. That remains a matter for the court based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Why the case matters beyond Ogidi’s family

The case has implications beyond the circumstances of one death.

Police officers are empowered to use force in circumstances permitted by law, but that authority comes with corresponding responsibilities.

The public’s willingness to cooperate with law enforcement depends significantly on confidence that police officers will exercise their powers within the law.

Where a suspect is alleged to have committed a serious offence, the proper response is investigation, arrest and prosecution where evidence supports a charge. The allegation of criminal conduct does not, by itself, remove a suspect’s right to life or due process.

That principle has also been emphasised by the Nigeria Police Force itself in its response to the Ogidi case.

The firearm discovery remains relevant

The circumstances surrounding the parcel found at the motor park should not be overlooked.

According to the police, the parcel contained a Beretta pistol and four rounds of ammunition. That discovery was the basis for Ogidi’s apprehension and remains relevant to understanding how the incident began.

However, the alleged discovery of a firearm and ammunition does not by itself resolve the separate question of whether the subsequent shooting was lawful.

Those are two distinct issues.

The court must examine the evidence concerning the alleged possession of the firearm as well as the circumstances in which police force was subsequently used.

The importance of due process

The Ogidi case demonstrates why due process remains central to criminal justice.

Even where law enforcement officers have strong grounds to suspect a person of committing an offence, the legal system provides mechanisms for investigation, prosecution and adjudication.

The role of the police is to investigate and enforce the law. The role of the courts is to determine criminal responsibility.

Where these functions become blurred, the risk of unlawful punishment increases.

That is why the reported admission that the shooting was unjustified is significant, but it is not itself a substitute for the judicial process. The court must still assess the evidence and determine the legal consequences.

Trial moves to the defence

With the prosecution having closed its case after calling six witnesses, attention will now shift to the defence.

Nuhu’s counsel, Uche Chibugwu, said the defence had thoroughly cross-examined the prosecution witnesses and would file Nuhu’s witness statement on oath before October 21.

The defence also indicated that it would not file a bail application.

The court has adjourned the matter until October 21, 2026, when the defence proceedings are expected to continue.

During the latest proceedings, Nuhu reportedly collapsed but was revived before the hearing continued.

Prosecution confident of conviction

The Delta State Director of Public Prosecutions, Tejiri R. Anuwhi, expressed confidence in the prosecution’s case.

She said the prosecution was hopeful of securing a conviction, describing the evidence before the court as substantial.

That position will now be tested through the defence stage and whatever further evidence the court admits.

For the victim’s family, however, the trial represents the continuing search for accountability over the death of a young man whose life ended while he was in police custody.

What the case could mean for police accountability

The case has also placed renewed attention on police training, firearm control and supervision.

A robust accountability system requires more than punishing officers after a fatal incident. It also requires effective training, clear rules of engagement, supervision and mechanisms capable of identifying and preventing misconduct before it results in loss of life.

The police have publicly stated that no uniform gives an officer the right to take a life outside the law.

The practical test is whether that principle is consistently reflected in police operations.

The outcome of the Ogidi case may therefore be closely watched not only by the victim’s family and the defendants, but also by Nigerians concerned about the exercise of police powers.

The road ahead

The reported admission by ASP Usman Nuhu that the shooting was unjustified adds another significant element to a case that has already generated disciplinary action within the police.

But the final determination belongs to the court.

The prosecution has closed its case. The defence is expected to present its evidence, after which the court will consider the totality of the evidence before reaching its decision.

Until then, the legal principle remains clear: allegations, statements made during investigation and disciplinary findings are relevant pieces of evidence, but criminal guilt must ultimately be established through the judicial process.

For the wider public, the case underscores an equally important principle — the fight against crime and the protection of citizens’ rights are not mutually exclusive.

Effective policing requires both the authority to enforce the law and the discipline to exercise that authority within the law.