The Lagos State Government has headed to the Supreme Court to challenge the acquittal of defilement charges against Dr. Olufemi Olaleye.
Dr. Olaleye, the medical director of the Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, has been accused of defiling his wife’s 16-year-old niece.
He was initially sentenced to life in prison by the Lagos State Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court in October 2023.
However, on November 29, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Lagos overturned Dr. Olaleye’s conviction due to contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence.
The appeals court determined that the trial court erred in convicting Dr. Olaleye based on “tainted” and “unreliable” evidence from his estranged wife and the putative survivor.
In response to this finding, civil society organisations pressed the state administration to appeal the decision.
They petitioned Lawal Pedro (SAN), the Lagos State Attorney General, urging the government to appeal the judgement to the Supreme Court in order to restore public trust in the legal system.
On December 12, 2024, the commissioner for justice told reporters at a press briefing that the case file was already on his desk and that the ministry would evaluate the appellate court’s decision.
When asked if he planned to appeal the judgement, Pedro stated that he had 90 days to do so. Dissatisfied with the appeals court’s judgement, the Lagos State Government argued that the acquittal was unjust.
The administration is now attempting to overturn the appellate court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.
The Lagos State Government filed an appeal on December 27, 2024, attempting to revoke Olaleye’s acquittal by the Court of Appeal.
The state government’s grounds for appeal include the claim that the appellate court erred in disregarding Section 209(2) of the Evidence Act of 2011 and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dagaya v. State (2006).
The state maintained that sworn testimony of a kid over the age of fourteen (14) needed corroboration, as provided by Section 209(3) of the testimony Act of 2011, which requires corroboration of evidence of a child under 14 in order to gain a conviction.
The state further claimed that the Justices of the Court of Appeals erred in law when they ruled that exhibits H, H1, and H2 were incorrectly allowed and relied on by the trial court since trial within trial was not conducted for their admissibility.
“The factors guiding the admissibility of confessional statements are well laid down in Sections 28 and 29 of the Evidence Act 2011, and objections to such admissibility must be raised at the time the statement is sought to be tendered, not after it has been admitted without objection.”
