“There are two or perhaps three misconceptions of the Law that are noticeable in the Submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants in the instant case.
The first is the belief of the Counsel to the Appellants that because the origin of the Criminal allegations contained in Exhibit MOJ 1, the petition by the 4th – 7th Respondents is a land matter, that the Police are still not entitled to carry out Criminal investigation based on the petition.
The second misconception of the learned Counsel to the Appellants is his belief or impression that his explanation or defence on the Criminal allegations in Exhibit MOJ 1 must necessarily be accepted by the Police and should stop the Police from any other further interrogation, investigation or detention in the matter. This cannot be so and it is indeed a misunderstanding of the process of investigation.
Just as we say that a trial is not an investigation, an investigation is also not a trial.
The 8th Edition of the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary at page 792 partly explains the word “investigate” as “to find out information and facts about a subject or problem by study or research”.
The fact that the Appellants made statements or have given some explanations to the Police on the Criminal investigation based on Exhibit MOJ 1 would not stop the Police investigation, interrogation or detention until the Police are satisfied with the outcome of their investigation.”Per OWOADE, J.C.A. (Pp. 24-26, Paras. F-A); AKANBI & ORS v. C.O.P KWARA STATE & ORS (2018) LPELR-44049(CA)