A Lagos Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, Ikeja has dismissed a ‘no case application’ filed by embattled medical doctor, Femi Olaleye alleged of defilement of her wife niece.
Justice Rahmon Oshodi, dismissed his application for lacking in merit and asked him to enter his defence.
The State government filed a two count charge against Olaleye, alleged him of having unlawful sexual intercourse and sexually assault by penetrating her mouth with his penis.
His offences contravened Sections 137 and 261 of the Criminal Laws of Lagos State, 2015.
During the ruling, the court held that he was inclined to agree with the prosecution witness and their testimony before the court.
Justice Oshodi said that he have studied all exhibit in detail and constraint to consider the evidence before the court on prima facie case and the credibility of the evidences
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 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, lead counsel to defence, Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN) in his ‘no case submission’ dated February 21,2023, 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. There was no prima facie case liking the defendant to the offence.
” In the first instance, the survivor did not stated that the offence was committed, it was after thought. We want the court to look at the testimony of PW6, 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.
In his 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 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 the defendant of. The evidence of PW3 also 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 was defile during her menstrual circle, she responded defendant knows her menstrual time. The survivor said defendant usually come when children were asleep,” Martins submitted.
The DPP therefore urged the court to dismissed defendant application and ask him to enter his defence.
The court, thereafter, adjourned the matter to 29th May for opening of defence case.