Rape: Lagos court hears UNILAG student’s testimony

A 20-year-old undergraduate of the University of Lagos on Monday told the Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja that she did not scream or call for help when she was allegedly raped by a lecturer of the institution, Dr Samuel Ojogbo, during the continued hearing before Justice Oyindamola Ogala.

The student, whose identity was withheld, made the admission under cross-examination while maintaining her allegation that the defendant “pushed and pinned” her during the incident.

“I didn’t scream or call for help,” she told the court when pressed by defence counsel, Demola Bello, SAN, even as she insisted the encounter took place in the lecturer’s office.

She described the location as an “underground office,” adding, “It was an underground office. There were no windows and no secretary.”

The defendant is being prosecuted by the Lagos State Government on a two-count charge of rape and sexual assault.

On the last adjourned date, April 15, 2026, the witness, in her evidence-in-chief, told the court that the alleged incident occurred on August 22, 2025, at about 12 noon at the university’s Akoka campus.

At the resumed hearing, she maintained that account, insisting the office was isolated and windowless. “It was an underground office. There were no windows and no secretary,” she repeated.

She told the court she had no prior personal relationship with the defendant, though she knew him as a lecturer and invigilator.

“August 21, 2025, was the first time he approached me directly,” she said, adding that he did not invigilate her examination hall.

According to her, the alleged incident lasted between 15 and 20 minutes, during which she said two female students briefly entered the office.

Under cross-examination, Bello pressed further on inconsistencies. When asked about the presence of a male postgraduate student said to have visited the office earlier, she responded, “I cannot remember if a male master’s student came in.”

She also told the court she went to meet a friend after the incident. “It was because I was staying in her hostel at the time,” she said, though she added, “She was not really my close friend.”

When asked if the defendant had told her that her roommate was waiting outside, she replied, “No, he did not.”

On her clothing that day, the witness said, “I wore trousers and a top, but I can’t remember the colour of the top.” She later clarified, “It was leggings, but it was not tight.”

Pressed further on whether she submitted the clothing as evidence, she said, “I only took the leggings and the shirt to the police. They later returned them to me.”

Bello suggested to her: “They returned it because you had washed them and there was no evidence, even though you said the leggings were not tight.” She replied, “I don’t know about that.”

The witness also confirmed that the defendant spoke with two women who entered his office before she was asked to close the door.

When asked who suggested she report the incident to Dr Abu, she said, “It was me and my hostel mate.”

She further told the court that she and the defendant later stepped out of the office together after the encounter.

During proceedings, the defence sought to tender a photograph said to depict the office as the alleged scene. The witness identified it in court, stating, “Yes, that is how the office looked when the incident happened.”

However, prosecution counsel, O.A. Azeez, objected to its admissibility under the Evidence Act.

Arguing for its admission, Bello said: “She has identified the picture as a representation of the defendant’s office. Having been identified as the scene of the crime, Section 84 of the Evidence Act relates to documents generated by computer; the foundation is no longer necessary. The document is relevant and should be admitted.”

In a brief ruling, Justice Ogala held that the prosecution’s objection had merit

“The court has carefully considered the objection and the submissions of counsel. There is merit in the objection. The document sought to be tendered requires proper foundation and certification,” she ruled.

The court consequently declined to admit the photograph in evidence.

The witness further told the court that she reported the incident to her uncle and later sought medical attention. “I went to the hospital, and a swab test was conducted,” she said, adding that the medical report was submitted to the police.

Justice Ogala adjourned the matter to May 11, 2026, for the continuation of the trial.(Punch)