By Our Reporter
LAGOS — A Lagos State Magistrate’s Court sitting at Igbosere has adjourned the trial of a 32-year-old TikTok creator, Yusuf Olamilekan, popularly known on social media as “BINTIN LAYE AZEEZ 1991,” who is facing criminal charges over the unauthorized distribution of nude photographs and threat to life.
Presiding Magistrate Kemi Awoyinka pushed the matter to July 3, 2026, to allow both the prosecution and defense teams to explore a potential out-of-court settlement.
The decision followed an application by the defense counsel, who argued that an amicable resolution would best serve the interests of justice given the interpersonal nature of the dispute.
Drama in Court Over Virtual Hearing and Witness Absence
At the resumed hearing on Monday, which was originally scheduled for the commencement of trial, the prosecution team faced a setback.
The Police Prosecutor, Inspector Adewale Sodiq, informed the court that while the state was fully prepared to proceed with the case, none of its witnesses were physically present in the courtroom.
Sodiq subsequently intimated to the court that the prosecution intended to file a formal application requesting a virtual hearing for the nominal complainant, Idowu Adebunwo, whose physical appearance might be constrained.
”My Lord, the matter was adjourned till today for trial. We intend to apply for virtual hearing for the nominal complainant; however, we do not have any witness in court today,” Sodiq stated.
Reacting swiftly, the defense counsel, Tokunbo Olawuyi, moved for an adjournment.
Olawuyi argued that a temporary stay of proceedings would grant both parties the necessary window to conclude ongoing discussions for an alternative dispute resolution.
He additionally noted that the defense had not yet been formally served with the prosecution’s proof of evidence, a prerequisite for building a full defense should the matter proceed to trial.
”Our humble application is for an adjournment to see if we can settle out of court. But I have not gotten the proof of evidence,” Olawuyi told the court.
Magistrate Awoyinka, after reviewing the case file, concurred with the defense’s perspective regarding the possibility of a non-custodial settlement. She observed that the statutory offenses levied against the defendant fell within a category that could be effectively remedied through mediation and restitution rather than protracted litigation.
”I have looked at the nature of the charge. There is nothing in the charge that cannot be settled out of court,” the Magistrate ruled.
Fresh Allegations of Continued Cyberbullying
The prospects of a smooth settlement, however, faced immediate friction as Prosecutor Sodiq raised an alarm regarding the defendant’s post-arraignment behavior.
Sodiq informed the court that the complainant, Adebunwo, had lodged a fresh complaint alleging that Olamilekan had reverted to his old ways immediately after securing his freedom from custody.
According to the prosecution, shortly after the defendant was granted bail on June 1, 2026, he allegedly logged back into his social media handles and resumed a targeted campaign of cyberbullying against Adebunwo. Sodiq argued that such actions displayed gross bad faith and cast doubts on the defendant’s sincerity regarding an out-of-court settlement.
”Someone who wants to settle out of court will not be doing the same thing he was charged for,” Sodiq argued, urging the court to take note of the defendant’s continuous conduct while on bail.
Despite the prosecutor’s objections, Magistrate Awoyinka maintained that the door for reconciliation should remain open until the next adjourned date but implicitly warned against actions that could prejudice the peace. She subsequently adjourned the matter to July 3, 2026, for a definitive report on the settlement terms.
The legal travails of Yusuf Olamilekan began on June 1, 2026, when he was hauled before the Lagos State Magistrate’s Court following an extensive police investigation.
The 32-year-old internet personality was arraigned on a two-count charge bordering on the unlawful display of nude photographs and threat to life.
According to the charge sheet, the offenses were committed sometime in July 2025 within the Isolo axis of Lagos State. The prosecution alleged that Olamilekan, utilizing his widely followed TikTok handle, “BINTINLAYEAZEEZ 1991,” deliberately uploaded explicitly private,
nude photographs of Idowu Adebunwo without the latter’s consent. Beyond the digital exposure, the police further asserted that the defendant issued direct verbal and written threats to end Adebunwo’s life.
The state maintained that Olamilekan’s actions conducted themselves in a manner highly likely to cause a severe breach of public peace, exposing the complainant to immense psychological trauma, public ridicule, and security risks.
The offenses, the prosecution noted, directly contravene Sections 168(1)(d) and 56(1)(a) of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015.
Upon his first arraignment, Olamilekan entered a plea of “not guilty” to both counts.
At the time, Magistrate Awoyinka had admitted him to bail in the sum of ₦500,000 with two responsible sureties in like sum, ordering that the sureties must possess verifiable addresses and evidence of tax payments to the Lagos State Government.
The Growing Menace of “Revenge Porn” in Nigeria
This case highlights a broader, troubling societal trend across Nigeria’s digital landscape: the rise of non-consensual pornography distribution, colloquially referred to as “revenge porn,” alongside aggressive cyberbullying.
Legal experts have increasingly voiced concerns over how digital spaces like TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) are being weaponized to settle personal scores. Under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act of Nigeria, as well as various state criminal laws including the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015, the unauthorized sharing of sexually explicit images carries stiff penalties, including hefty fines and prison sentences.
Legal analysts monitoring the case note that while Section 168 of the Lagos State Criminal Law primarily treats breaches of public peace as misdemeanors, the compounding charge of threat to life under Section 56 elevates the severity of the case.
The decision of the court to allow for an out-of-court settlement reflects a growing judicial willingness to encourage restorative justice in cases involving digital harassment, provided that the victim is adequately compensated and the offending behavior ceases permanently.
However, with the prosecution’s fresh allegations of ongoing cyberbullying, the July 3 hearing will prove crucial in determining whether Olamilekan will escape a full-blown trial or face the full wrath of the law.
