A Lagos Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court in Ikeja, has rejected the ‘no case application’ of embattled medical doctor, Femi Olaleye, in a defilement case against him.
Judge Oshodi denied Olaleye’s request due to its lack of merit and commanded him to present his defence against the two charges brought against him by the state government, which included unlawful sexual intercourse and the sexual assault of his niece through the penetration of her mouth with his genitalia.
He violated Sections 137 and 261 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
In the ‘no case submission’ made by Mr Olusegum Fabunmi (SAN) on 21 February, 2023, the counsel for the defendant argued that the prosecution had not presented enough evidence to require the defendant to present a defence. Additionally, he submitted that the prosecution’s evidence was not sufficient to convict his client.
The senior lawyer declared that the defendant had not been seen doing the alleged wrongdoings and had even denied them; thus, there was no evidence that could be used to connect him to the crime.
He said: “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, in which it was 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 dismiss the case against the defendant.
In his response, 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 its 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 under-aged girl (survivor) corroborated what the prosecution alleged the defendant of. The evidence of PW3 also corroborated it in accordance to 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 at that time.
“ We have alleged defilement by penetration, tendered exhibits as well as documentary evidence. Even when the survivor was cross- examined by the learned silk , she responded that the defendant knows her menstrual time. The survivor also said that the defendant usually came when children were asleep,” Martins said.
The DPP asked the court to reject the defendant’s request and commanded him to enter his defence. The judge was likely to accept the prosecution witness and their statements.
After having thoroughly examined all of the pieces of evidence, Justice Oshodi said he was obligated to evaluate the initial appearance of the case as well as the trustworthiness of the evidence presented before the court.
“I have carefully listened to the submissions of both prosecution and defence counsel. In this case six witnesses testified for the prosecution and various exhibits were tendered in evidence.
“At this stage, I am unable 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’s 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 is worthwhile.
“The learned SAN has pointed out some evidence he considered as discrepancies in testimonies of the prosecution’s 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’s 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,” the court held.
The court was adjourned untill 29 March, 2023 for the defendant to begin his defence.
