The Advocate for Children and Vulnerable Persons Network ( ACVPN) has condemned the act of weaponisation of rape cases as tool for personal vendatta. Mr Ebenezer Omejalile the
Co-founder/Chief Operating Officer (ACVPN) who is irked by the act was reacting in a statement following the court of Appeal in Lagos acquitting Dr. Femi Olaleye the Managing Director of Optimal Cancer Care Foundation.
The statement read ” This is the other side of the coin on watery prosecution without substantial evidence, invariably it means there was, weaponizing of rape, mistreatment, personal vendetta, against the accused .Unfortunately I will be playing the Devil ADVOCATES FOR reasons been that I am not surprised at this judgment because there were too many opportunistic characters without common sense application .
Kudos to the Appeal Court judges who sat on this case with a well spelt out verdict. The accused might have his flaws by been a randy dog but we cannot take away the facts that most of his clients gave consent .
This was one of the reasons we stayed back because we noticed unnecessary sentiment in the prosecution and media trial without thorough investigation.
Right from the very day the defense counsel pointed out some very substantial facts about the medical examination without further forensic interview on the victim we knew it would lead to what happened yesterday.
Unfortunately the honorable Judge of the special offences Court was misled to apply a kangaroo judgement due to desperados elements in other to embarrass the sitting judge of the Special Offences Court.
It’s a common sense that is not common Why would the accused ‘s wife apply to take over his property and put it on sale while trial is still ongoing? This calls for common sense garbage in garbage out.
The appeal has proved that cases of such nature should be thoroughly investigated with proven evidence beyond doubt so that it would not be seen as weaponized tool in order to get at the questionable character.
This is an advice for the overzealous state agencies, to go back to the drawing board and restrategized on its modus operandi by been proactive in all ramifications and acts based responsibly not on unnecessary Sentiment, Biased due to Pressures received from some lame duck civil society organizations.
Every alleged persons deserves a fair hearing, Equity and Justice.
One of the great philosopher Aristotle once advocated that Great Laws don’t bring great Men but Great men bring great Laws”.
Channels TV has reported that Managing Director of Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, Dr Femi Olaleye was cleared of rape case by the Court of Appeal in Lagos which acquitted and discharged the Medical Director.
The court upturned the decision of the Lagos State Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court which had sentenced Dr Olaleye, to life imprisonment for defiling his wife’s 16-year-old niece.
Justice Olukayode Bada who read the lead judgment which was adopted by the two other justices on the panel held that the trial court erred in convicting Dr Olaleye based on “tainted” and ‘unreliable’ evidence of his estranged wife, Oluremi and the alleged survivor.
The other members of the panel were Justice Zainab Abubakar and Justice Abdulazeez Dogo.
The appellate court agreed with the submissions of Olaleye’s lead counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Kemi Pinheiro, who insisted that there were material contradictions in the evidence gathered by the prosecutions which should not have been relied on by the lower court.
The court also faulted some other parts of the evidence of the prosecution during the trial, which was from a child forensic specialist, a medical doctor from the Mirabel centre and the investigating officer, which were found to be “worthless”
For the appellate court, the trial judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi also descended in the arena and interfered in the proceedings to bridge what it described as “the yawning gaps in the prosecution’s case”.
In the judgment, the court of appeal also queried why the prosecution failed to present material witnesses such as two family members who were said to have witnessed the appellant’s alleged confession.
The court added that a trial within trial ought to have been conducted during the trial to verify the voluntariness of the appellant’s confessional statements while he was in police custody, especially as he said he made it under duress after he had been detained for six days.
The court of appeal determined all five issues of appeal against the prosecution and in favour of the appellant.
