*Dr Olaleye Justice Rahmon Oshodi of an Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, has dismissed a 'no case application' fil...
*Dr Olaleye
Justice Rahmon Oshodi of an Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, has dismissed a 'no case application' filed by the Medical Director of Optimal Cancer Foundation, Dr Femi Olaleye alleged of defilement of her wife niece.
Justice Oshodi told Dr Olaleye yesterday that he has a case to answer and ordered him to open his defence.
The judge said his 'no case submission ' application was lacking in merit.
Dr Olaleye is facing a two-count charge of defilement and sexual assault by penetration of his wife’s niece brought against him by the state.
He was alleged to have committed the offence between March 2020 and November 2021.
Ruling on the application of the defense led by Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN), Justice Oshodi 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 exhibit in detail and was constraint to consider the evidence before the court on prima facie case and the credibility of the evidences
"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."
The judge said he was inclined to agree with the prosecution that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses namely PW1 to 6 and the exhibits tendered thus far has made it worthwhile to continue the trial.
"The no case submission is overruled and accordingly, the defendant is hereby called upon to open his defense."
Earlier, Fabunmi (SAN) in his 'no case submission' dated February 21,2023, had argued that the prosecution has not provide 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 offences. The defendant even denied committing the offence.
He contended that there was no prima facie case liking the defendant to the offence.
" In the first instance, the survivor did not state that the offence was committed, it was after thought.
"We want the court to look at the testimony of PW6, who stated 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 dismissed the case against the defendant.
Responding, the prosecution team, the Director of Public Prosecution(DPP), Dr. Babajide Martins submitted that the prosecution has called six witnesses including survivor to testify in the case.
He said the prosecution also tendered 21 exhibit to prove his case against the defendant.
He argued that there was no doubt about the identity of the defendant, as the survivor gave account of how she was asked to suck the defendant penis.
"The issue that PW2 does not know when the incident happen does not arise. The testimony of the under age girl (survivor) corroborated what the prosecution alleged that the defendant committed of committing, noting however that the evidence of PW3 was corroborated.
"The law is settled, the probative value in accordance to section 24 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law. The defendant did not even say he did not leave 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 evidences. Even when the survivor was cross- examined by the learned silk, that she was defiled during her menstrual circle, she responded that the defendant knows her menstrual time.'
The DPP therefore urged the court to dismissed defendant application and ask him to enter his defence.
The matter has been adjourned till May 29.
No comments