Fidelity Advert

Defilement: Court dismisses Dr Olaleye’s no-case submission

Defilement: Court dismisses Dr Olaleye’s no-case submission %Post Title

Justice Ramon Oshodi of the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, Ikeja, on Thursday, dismissed the no-case submission of medical doctor Femi Olaleye, who is charged with defiling his wife’s niece.

Mr Olaleye is facing a two-count charge of defilement and sexual assault by penetration. He pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Peoples Gazette had earlier reported that the prosecution team have called six witnesses before the court and closed the case against the doctor.

On Thursday, the judge ruled that the defendant should open his case.

“Accordingly, the no case submission is hereby overruled. The defendant is now called upon to open his defence under Section 246,” the judge said.

The judge said the prosecution team has presented six witnesses and evidence but he cannot rule based on the evidence provided.

“At this stage, I am not to decide whether the evidence presented is believed or not. I am not to decide the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

“What I am obligated to do at this stage is to consider whether the evidence is reliable, then I can look at it candidly.”

Earlier, the defence counsel, Olusegun Fabunmi, argued that it has not been proven that the defendant committed the offence and he cannot enter into defence.

He argued that the survivor was not present for medical examination as at the time the incident happened and she was taken to the hospital five months after she had become an “adult.”

“Our point my lordship is that you should look at the testimony of PW6, the police officer clearly stated that the survivor was not produced for medical examination at the time,” Mr Fabunmi

“Why was the survivor not produced? Why wait for five months after she has become an adult to conduct a medical examination which is not enough against the defendant,” Mr Fabunmi said.

“We urged your lordship to dismiss the no-case submission and discharge the defendant.”

While, the prosecution team led by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP),  Babajide Martins, said that the survivor could identify the defendant

He argued that the testimony of the doctor should be admitted because the survivor was examined at Mirabel Centre and a doctor will not visit the survivor at her residence.

“There is no doubt about the identity of the defendant as the survivor gave account of how she was asked to suck the defendant’s penis,” Mr Martins said.

He added that the survivor had already told the court during cross-examination that the defendant “knows her time of menstrual cycle.”

“PW2 (Survivor) gave an accurate description of the incident and she said the defendant comes into the bedroom to defile her when the children and aunty are not in the room.”

Mr Martin said the survivor was not below 14-year old when the incident happened and she was examined by medical expert.

He stated that the defence counsel claimed that there are more witnesses and evidence to be provided.

He added that the judge will consider the credibility of the witnesses based on the provisions of the law

“We urge the court to dismiss the application of the defendant and allow the defendant to enter his defence,” Mr Martins said.

The judge adjourned the case till March 29 for further continuation.

League of boys banner

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.