 |
| Court gravel |
The prosecution witness, DSP Adenike Ayanleye, a Police Investigating Officer (IPO) has narrated to a Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Court sitting in Ikeja how a child (name withheld) identified the Supervisor of the Chrisland School, Lekki, Adegboyega Adenekan who allegedly defiled her.
Ayanleye who is from the Juvenile Welfare Center of the Ikeja Police Division on the order of the court, while testifying played a video clip of an interview she had with the pupil on November 24, 2017 in the courtroom.
In her evidence led by the prosecution counsel, Mr. Babajide Boye, the witness told court that she conducted the interview with a lawyer from the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) and the child’s mother.
Adenekan is standing trial for allegedly defiling a two and half year-old pupil of the school before Justice Sybil Nwaka.
The prosecution had alleged that Adenekan defiled the child by having sexual intercourse with her sometime in November 2016 at Chrisland School, VGC, Lekki.
Adenekan who was then arraigned on January 2018 however pleaded not guilty to the charge of child defilement.
However, during trial last week, in the clip, the IPO and the child’s mother were asking her how many times Adenekan put his manhood (wee wee) into her wee wee and she responded, “two times.”
The witness said: “The OPD lawyer came with the mother of the child, and they both made statements. I conducted the interview because it had to do with a child; the questions were coming from the three of us because the child was jumping from one place to another; so, a play-away method had to be used to question the child.”
The seventh prosecution witness told court that she visited the school along with OPD lawyer and the child’s mother, adding that they met the head teacher of the school.
“The child took us upstairs to the defendant’s office. She identified his seat out of three seats in the room and she identified the restroom in the office where the said incident happened,” she stated.
However, she was cross-examined by the defence counsel, Mr. Olatunde Adejuyigbe (SAN) who expressed doubts in police investigation into the matter.
He said: “In the interview (in the video clip), the child did not narrate what happened; you formulated questions that led to her answers. There was no place in the video where the child narrated on her own, what happened between her and the defendant.
“Is it part of police methodology to allow a complainant (the child’s mother) who has given a statement to be part of the police investigation?” he asked.
Adejuyigbe recalled that the child said the incidents with the defendant happened after assembly.
“Did you find out from the school the procedure for escorting pupils to their classes after assembly?” he asked again.
He therefore asked the IPO if she called the child at any time to tell the defendant in his pesence what he did to her.
“Did you know of the second pupil alleged to be defiled by the defendant?”
The IPO, however answered in the negative. Adejuyigbe therefore told the court that the defence would file a no-case submission pursuant to Section 239(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL).
The trial judge subsequently adjourned the case to April 15, 2019 for the adoption of the no-case submission by the defence.
In this article:
Ayanleye who is from the Juvenile Welfare Center of the Ikeja Police Division on the order of the court, while testifying played a video clip of an interview she had with the pupil on November 24, 2017 in the courtroom.
In her evidence led by the prosecution counsel, Mr. Babajide Boye, the witness told court that she conducted the interview with a lawyer from the Office of the Public Defender (OPD) and the child’s mother.
Adenekan is standing trial for allegedly defiling a two and half year-old pupil of the school before Justice Sybil Nwaka.
The prosecution had alleged that Adenekan defiled the child by having sexual intercourse with her sometime in November 2016 at Chrisland School, VGC, Lekki.
Adenekan who was then arraigned on January 2018 however pleaded not guilty to the charge of child defilement.
However, during trial last week, in the clip, the IPO and the child’s mother were asking her how many times Adenekan put his manhood (wee wee) into her wee wee and she responded, “two times.”
The witness said: “The OPD lawyer came with the mother of the child, and they both made statements. I conducted the interview because it had to do with a child; the questions were coming from the three of us because the child was jumping from one place to another; so, a play-away method had to be used to question the child.”
The seventh prosecution witness told court that she visited the school along with OPD lawyer and the child’s mother, adding that they met the head teacher of the school.
“The child took us upstairs to the defendant’s office. She identified his seat out of three seats in the room and she identified the restroom in the office where the said incident happened,” she stated.
However, she was cross-examined by the defence counsel, Mr. Olatunde Adejuyigbe (SAN) who expressed doubts in police investigation into the matter.
He said: “In the interview (in the video clip), the child did not narrate what happened; you formulated questions that led to her answers. There was no place in the video where the child narrated on her own, what happened between her and the defendant.
“Is it part of police methodology to allow a complainant (the child’s mother) who has given a statement to be part of the police investigation?” he asked.
Adejuyigbe recalled that the child said the incidents with the defendant happened after assembly.
“Did you find out from the school the procedure for escorting pupils to their classes after assembly?” he asked again.
He therefore asked the IPO if she called the child at any time to tell the defendant in his pesence what he did to her.
“Did you know of the second pupil alleged to be defiled by the defendant?”
The IPO, however answered in the negative. Adejuyigbe therefore told the court that the defence would file a no-case submission pursuant to Section 239(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL).
The trial judge subsequently adjourned the case to April 15, 2019 for the adoption of the no-case submission by the defence.
In this article: