DJ Chicken Remanded Over Seyi Tinubu Threat as Ajagurajah Foresees Abu Trica’s Re-Arrest

Recent legal developments involving high-profile personalities in West Africa have drawn significant public attention, highlighting the legal and social consequences of public actions in the digital age. In Lagos, Nigeria, popular content creator Ademola Abiodun, widely known as DJ Chicken, has been remanded in custody following serious allegations regarding threats to the First Family. Meanwhile, in Ghana, the re-arrest of socialite Abu Trica has sparked significant commentary from spiritual leader Bishop Kwabena Asiamah, known as Ajagurajah, who claims to have spiritually foreseen the legal predicament. DJ Chicken’s legal woes escalated on July 9, 2026, when he appeared before a magistrate court in the Ogba area of Lagos State. The content creator was arraigned for allegedly issuing death threats against Seyi Tinubu, the son of Nigeria’s President, Bola Tinubu. Following the proceedings, the court ordered that Abiodun be remanded at the Kirikiri Correctional Centre, a development that has underscored the increasing scrutiny by Nigerian authorities on social media content and the potential legal ramifications of perceived threats against public officials. Across the border in Ghana, Bishop Kwabena Asiamah, popularly known as Ajagurajah, has shared insights into the recent legal troubles of socialite Abu Trica. In a video released on July 10, 2026, Ajagurajah revealed that he had previously cautioned Trica about the possibility of a second arrest shortly after his initial release. The Bishop emphasized that his advice was rooted in spiritual foresight, suggesting that the socialite had not fully heeded the warnings regarding his conduct. These incidents reflect a broader trend of legal accountability for digital influencers and public figures across the sub-region. As DJ Chicken awaits further court proceedings in Nigeria and the circumstances surrounding Abu Trica’s case continue to unfold in Ghana, these stories serve as a reminder of the delicate balance between public expression and legal boundaries. Both cases continue to generate intense debate on social media platforms, with audiences closely monitoring the outcomes of these high-stakes legal matters.