The Lagos State Government has filed an appeal before the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision that overturned the conviction of Femi Olaleye, a medical doctor and managing director of the Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, for the defilement of his wife’s niece.
In October 2023, Olaleye was convicted by the Lagos State Special Offences and Domestic Violence Court on two counts of defilement of a child and sexual assault by penetration.
The charges were brought against him by the state’s Ministry of Justice in November 2022.
But, on November 29, 2024, the Court of Appeal acquitted Olaleye, citing errors in the lower court’s judgment.
The appellate court held that the evidence presented by the prosecution was “tainted” and “unreliable,” leading to the overturning of his conviction.
In response to this ruling, some Civil Society Organisations piled pressure on the state government to appeal the decision.
They petitioned the Lagos State Attorney General, Lawal Pedro (SAN), urging the government to challenge the judgment at the Supreme Court to restore public trust in the justice system.
The Commissioner for Justice had on December 12, 2024, told newsmen during a press briefing that the case file was already on his table and the ministry was going to review the judgment of the appellate court.
Pedro, when asked if there was any plan to appeal the judgment had said he had 90 days of right of appeal.
According to him, there was a need to study the file because there were ways to look at things from the point of law.
The AG added there was no sentiment or emotion about the law.
He said the case file would be reviewed and if there was any reason to challenge the appellate court, they would head to the Supreme Court.
However, on December 27, 2024, the Lagos State Government filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, seeking to reverse the Court of Appeal’s acquittal of Olaleye.
The state government’s grounds for appeal include the argument that the appellate court erred in disregarding Section 209(2) of the Evidence Act, 2011, and the Supreme Court decision in Dagaya v. State (2006).
The state contended that the sworn evidence of a child above the age of 14 requires corroboration, as specified by Section 209(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which mandates that the evidence of a child under 14 needs corroboration to secure a conviction.
The state further held that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that Exhibits H, H1, and H2, were wrongly admitted and relied upon by the trial court having failed to conduct trial within trial for their admissibility.
“The factors guiding admissibility of confessional statements are well laid down in Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act 2011, and objection to such admissibility must be raised at the time the statement is sought to be tendered not after it has been admitted without objection.
“Where an objection to the admissibility of a document on the ground of voluntariness of the statement has been withdrawn by the defendant, there is no requirement to conduct trial within trial hence Exhibits H, H1 and H2 were properly admitted.
“After the close of the prosecution’s case, a defendant called as a witness may be cross-examined on his earlier statement with a view to contradict him by the writing or discredit him as in the instant appeal and this is permitted under Section 232, of the Evidence Act, 2011, and such statement does not require trial within trial.
The state added that the Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that the failure of the prosecution to call DPO Patricia Amadi and Aunty Tessy was fatal to the case of the prosecution in the trial court.
“The law is settled that the prosecution is not obliged to call all the witnesses listed in the information or a host of witnesses is required to prove the allegations beyond reasonable doubt.
“A single witness who gives cogent eyewitness account on a vital point will suffice.
“The absence of Aunty Tessy was not in any way fatal to the case of the prosecution where evidence of PW2 (Prosecution witness 2) and that of other witnesses has already established the ingredients of the offence against the defendant/respondent.
“The absence of DPO Patricia Amadi who was not the Investigating Police Officer was not in any way fatal to the case of the prosecution. More so, when PW6, who investigated the case, gave evidence of the investigation and this was not discredited,” the state said.
Also, the state sought the following reliefs: An order allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on November 29, 2024.
An order affirming the conviction and sentences of Olaleye by the trial court in Charge No. ID/20289C/2022.
