Kemisola Oye
JUSTICE Rahmon Oshodi of a Lagos Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, Ikeja today dismissed a no-case application filed by the embattled medical doctor, Femi Olaleye alleged of defilement of his wife’s niece.
The judge dismissed his application for lacking merit and asked him to enter his defence.
The Lagos State government had filed a two-count charge against Dr. Olaleye accusing him of having unlawful sexual intercourse and sexual assault by penetrating the mouth of the survivor with his penis.
His alleged offence contravened sections 137 and 261 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
However, while ruling on his application moved by the defendant’s lead counsel, Mr. Olusegum Fabunmi (SAN), the court held that he was inclined to agree with the prosecution witness and their testimony before the court.
Justice Oshodi said that he has studied all exhibits in detail and constraint to consider the evidence before the court on prima facie case and the credibility of the evidence
He held that “I have carefully listened to the submissions of both prosecution and defence. In this case, six witnesses testified for the prosecution and various exhibits were tendered in evidence.
“At this stage, I am not to decide whether the evidence presented is believed or not. I am not to decide the credibility or the way to attack the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but what I am obligated to do at this stage is to decide whether something has been produced so far to prove this case worthwhile.
“The learned SAN has pointed out some evidence he considered as discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but I am afraid I am unable to give such an opinion regarding the discrepancies at this stage in a no-case context.
“I am inclined to agree with the prosecution, I do believe that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses namely pw1 to 6 and the exhibits tendered thus far have made it worthwhile to continue the trial.
“The no-case submission is overruled and accordingly the defendant is hereby called upon to open his defence.”
Earlier, Fabunmi (SAN) argued that the prosecution has not provided sufficient evidence against the defendant to warrant him to enter defence. He also submitted that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to convict the defendant.
According to the senior lawyer, there was no time the defendant was caught committing the alleged offence. The defendant even denied committing the offence. There was no prima facie case linking the defendant to the offence.
“In the first instance, the survivor did not state that the offence was committed, it was an after-thought. We want the court to look at the testimony of pw6, stating that the victim did not produce the medical report at the time she alleged the offence was committed.”
He urged the court to grant the application and dismiss the case against the defendant.
In response to his argument, the lead prosecution team, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), Dr. Babajide Martins, submitted that the prosecution has called six witnesses including the survivor to testify in the case. He said the prosecution also tendered 21 exhibits to prove his case against the defendant.
He argued that there was no doubt about the identity of the defendant, as the survivor gave an account of how she was asked to suck the defendant’s penis.
“The issue that pw2 does not know when the incident happened does not arise. The testimony of the underage girl (survivor) corroborated what the prosecution alleged the defendant of. The evidence of pw3 also corroborated.
“The law is settled, the probative value in accordance with Section 24 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law. The defendant did not even say he did not live in that house. The girl was 15 years and not below 14 years as at that time.
“We have alleged defilement by penetration, tender exhibits as well as documentary evidence. Even when the survivor was cross-examined by the learned silk that she was defiled during her menstrual cycle, she responded that the defendant knew her menstrual time. The survivor said the defendant usually comes when children were asleep,” Martins submitted.
The DPP, therefore, urged the court to dismiss the defendant’s application and ask him to enter his defence.
The suit has been adjourned till 29th March 2023 for the defendant to open his defence.