An Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court, dismissed the no case submission of the embattled physician, Dr Olufemi Olaleye, charged with the defilement of his wife’s 16-year-old niece. Olaleye, the medical director of Cancer Care Foundation, is facing trial before the court on a two-count charge of defilement and sexual assault by penetration.
Justice Ramon Oshodi dismissed Olaleye’s application for lacking merit after the submissions of both parties.
He said: “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 find 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 and I do believe that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses namely PW1 to PW6, and the exhibits tendered thus far has made it worthwhile to continue the trial.
“The no case submission is hereby overruled, and accordingly, the defendant is hereby called upon to open his defence.
Earlier, the lead counsel for the defence, Mr Olusegun Fabunmi (SAN), had moved the application for no case submission and argued that the prosecution had not provided sufficient evidence against the defendant to warrant him to enter a defence. Fabunmi argued that the evidence of the prosecution was not sufficient to convict the defendant.
According to him, there was no time the defendant was caught committing the alleged offences.
“The defendant even denied committing the offence. There is no prima facie case linking 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, the police officer, who said that the survivor did not produce the medical report at the time she alleged the offence was committed.
“We urged the court to grant the application and dismiss the case against the defendant,” Fabunmi said.
The prosecution team led by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Dr Babajide Martins, said that the prosecution has called six witnesses, including the survivor, to testify in the case.
Martins said that the prosecution had also tendered 21 exhibits to prove the case against the defendant.
He said: “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 sexual organ.
“The issue that PW2 (survivor) does not know when the incident happened does not arise. The testimony of the survivor corroborated what the prosecution alleged the defendant of.
“The law is settled, the probative value is in accordance with Section 24 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law.
“The defendant did not even say he did not live in that house.
“We have alleged defilement by penetration, tendered exhibits as well as documentary evidences.
“Even when the survivor was cross- examined by the learned silk, she informed the court that her defilement was during her menstrual circle. That indicates that the survivor knows her menstrual time. The survivor said that the defendant usually came when children were asleep.
“We humbly urge the court to dismiss the application of the defendant and ask him to enter his defence.”