CRIME & PUNISHMENT

Man Bags Life Imprisonment for Having Unlawful Sexual Intercourse with His Mother’s Housemaid

Funke Olaode

The Lagos Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court has sentenced a man, Peter Odu, to life imprisonment for the defilement of a 14-year-old girl.

Justice Rahman Oshodi sentenced Odu after finding him guilty of a one-count charge of defilement brought against him by the Lagos government.

The convict committed the offence sometime in 2020, having unlawful sexual intercourse with the girl (name withheld) at No. 25 Kayode Street, Ogba, Lagos.

His offence of defilement of a child is contrary to section 137 of the Criminal Law, Ch. C17, Vol. 3, Laws of Lagos State, 2015.

Odu pleaded not guilty to the charge when he was arraigned before the court on February 11, 2022.

The prosecution, therefore, commenced the trial and called three witnesses. PW1, a social worker; PW2, the prosecutrix; and PW3, a police sergeant Esther Sunday, the investigating police officer (IPO) from Pen Cinema Police Station, who handled the initial stages of the investigation.

The defendant also called three witnesses for his defence.

However, while delivering judgment, Justice Oshodi said that he had carefully considered the facts of the case and the evidence presented.

The court said that the prosecution proved the case of defilement beyond reasonable doubt. He also said that he held the prosecution’s comments and the impact of the convict’s actions on the young victim.

The judge stated, “The crime strikes at the heart of our society’s duty to protect its most vulnerable members. At the tender age of 12, the prosecutrix was placed in your family’s care, far from her home and bereft of her parents’ protection. Instead of providing her with safety and guidance, you exploited her vulnerability for your desires.

“The physical and emotional trauma you have inflicted on this child is immeasurable and likely to have long-lasting effects on her life.

The law recognises the severity of such offences against children, and this court must enforce those laws to their fullest extent. Section 137 of the Criminal Law mandates life imprisonment for the defilement of a child, reflecting society’s utter condemnation of such acts.”

After pausing for a moment, the judge declared his ruling.

“Therefore, according to the law and considering the grievous nature of your crime, I now sentence you, Peter Odu, to life imprisonment. You shall also be registered as a sex offender,” the judge.

The judge “hopes that this sentence will serve not only as punishment for your actions but also as a deterrent to others who might contemplate similar heinous acts against children.”

During the trial, the defendant maintained his innocence and called three witnesses. The defendant testified as DW1, denying the allegations against him.

He was cross-examined with a certified copy of his extrajudicial statement dated June 9, 2021 (Exhibit F). His mother, Mrs Dorathy Odu, the prosecutrix’s guardian in Lagos, took the stand as DW2. Finally, as DW3, the court heard from Mrs Blessing Chukwudike, the prosecutrix’s aunt, who had initially arranged for the prosecutrix to live with the Odu family.

The court said the story of the young prosecutrix, in this case, is one marked by loss, vulnerability, and alleged exploitation. 

Her mother passed away, leaving her without maternal care, and her father’s whereabouts remain unknown. In the wake of her mother’s death, the prosecutrix found herself in the care of her aunt, Chukwudike (DW3), in Imo state.

Chukwudike arranged for the prosecutrix to live with Odu’s mother (DW2) in Lagos. At the tender age of 12, the prosecutrix left her rural home to work as a domestic help at 25 Kayode Street, Ogba, Lagos, which the prosecution said was the crime scene. The defence does not dispute this part of her evidence.

It was in this new environment that the prosecutrix alleged the traumatic events unfolded. In her testimony, she recounted two incidents of sexual abuse by the defendant, the son of her guardian.

Her account of these events was both direct and disturbing.

“In 2019, he (the defendant) was staying with us in the house, and first of all, he first raped me, and he said I should not tell anyone. So, I didn’t tell anyone. In 2020, he left the house before 2020.

“So, one day he came to visit his mother, and nobody was around the time he came to the house. So, I was lying down in the parlour, so he started touching my body and pulling my clothes,” said the victim.

The defence argued that the prosecutrix said she did not know the  meaning of “menstrual cycle.” However, the blood was not the result of menstruation, as she stated in her evidence-in-chief. The prosecutrix’s journey to reporting these alleged incidents was not straightforward. After the second incident, she confided in another girl named Mercy, who was living in the house. Mercy encouraged her to tell Odu (the defendant’s mother), but the prosecutrix claimed that when she did, Odu made a phone call and took no further action.

The situation came to light when the prosecutrix, desperate to  escape, told her teacher at school that she wanted to return to her village. When pressed for a reason, she revealed the alleged abuse: “So, when she (my teacher said education was important, I now opened up to her that my madam’s son is raping me in the house, that I cannot stay there again. So, she quickly went to tell the headmistress, the headmistress now called the social worker.”

This disclosure set the events leading to the defendant’s arrest in motion. The school authorities orchestrated a plan to apprehend the defendant in collaboration with a social worker.

The judge held that he believed the prosecutrix that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her. The testimonies of the IPO and the social worker provided compelling circumstantial evidence to support the allegation of rape.

N10bn Bond: First Deepwater Discontinues Admiralty Suit Against Vessel, MT AYODEJI

Wale Igbintade

First Deepwater Discovery Limited, an oil marketing firm, has discontinued a suit filed against Petroli Energy Marketing & Supply Limited and two others over alleged illegal berthing.

Other defendants in the suit are Shellplux Nigeria Limited and MT. Ayodeji. The notice of discontinuance, signed by the claimant’s lawyer, A. B Ogunba (SAN), said, “Take notice that the plaintiffs hereby wholly discontinue this suit in its entirety against all the defendants.”

Justice Yelim Bogoro had on June 19, 2024, in suit numbered FHC/L/CS/1004/2024, ordered the defendants to provide security of $100,000 and N10 billion within 24 hours, failure of which a warrant of arrest will be issued against the vessel, MT. Ayodeji with IMO No. 9235701; MMSI: 636018839.

However, following a motion on notice filed by Ikechukwu Ukadike, counsel to the third defendant (MT AYODEJI), to discharge the ex parte order, the court adjourned the case to October 3, 2024, for hearing.

In the said application, Ukadike, while urging the court to set aside the order or discharge it unconditionally, stated four grounds thus:

In the said application, Ukadike, while urging the court to set aside the order or discharge it unconditionally, stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the said prayers of the plaintiffs.

He submitted that the plaintiff’s cause of action is a simple contract, not an admiralty action under relevant laws.

He further stated that the plaintiff concealed and suppressed vital and material facts when they applied for the order to be made, which was subsequently granted on June 19, 2024.

He said, “The third defendant, vessel M T Ayodeji, is not owned by the Petroli Energy marketing supply limited and Shellplux Nigeria Limited, who are the first and second defendants) but an entirely different entity. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the vessel.”

In an affidavit sworn to by Mr. Efe Ogaga, a litigation manager in the law firm of Queen Ukadike & Associates, counsel to MT Ayodeji, he stated that after being served with the court’s order, M T. Ayodeji was puzzled by the order, which inter alia directed it to provide security for $100,000 and N10 billion within 24 hours, failure of which a warrant of arrest will be issued against the vessel.

According to court documents, the vessel owners did not hire, rent or contract with any party for the berthing of the vessel at the plaintiff’s jetty/tank farm and had no privity of contract with the plaintiffs. By a charter party agreement dated 23rd May 2024, Petroli Energy Marketing and Supply Limited chartered the ship for the carriage of petroleum product.

“It was the responsibility of the said charterer to arrange jetty/harbour where its cargo will be discharged, and all such arrangements were to be on the charterer’s account,” noted the court document. “It is not true that the ship or her owners illegally berthed the vessel at the plaintiff’s jetty.”

It stated that the ship “is owned by Owolmart Maritime Company Limited, as clearly shown on the certificate of registry duly issued by the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA).”

As of June 13, 2024, when this suit was commenced, and subsequently June 19, 2024, when the order was made, the voyage evidenced by the above charter party agreement had since ended, the cargo fully discharged, and the vessel departed, the court document noted.

“The plaintiffs maliciously joined the ship and secured an order against her to provide security for an unsubstantiated sum of ten billion naira for alleged trespass to property and $100,000 for alleged “illegal berthing” whereas the plaintiffs know that these allegations against the ship are false as the ship was never involved in any berthing arrangement nor trespassed the plaintiff’s property as alleged,” the court heard.

“Consequently, if the said order of 19th June 2024 is not immediately vacated, it will work irreparable hardship on the ship who will be exposed to 3rd party actions from other charterers who have already chartered the ship and the ship will be losing a daily hire sum of $60,000.00 excluding dally expenses of maintaining the ship when she is under arrest and idle,” the lawyer argued. “Immediately after this application to set aside the order was filed, the counsel to the plaintiffs filed a notice of discontinuance and wholly discontinued the suit in its entirety against the defendants.”

Haulage Operator Appeals Against Bench Warrant Order

Wale Igbintade

A haulage operator, Mr. Adolphus Peter, has asked the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division to set aside the bench warrant issued against him by Justice Akintayo Aluko of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court over the alleged diversion of diesel.

Justice Aluko had issued the bench warrant after listening to an ex parte application filed before the court by the Police Special Fraud Unit (PSFU).

Dissatisfied, the appellant and his company, Adokhai Global Resources Nig. Limited in their notice of appeal, filed by their lawyer, Dele Igbinedion prayed to the court to allow the appeal and set aside the decisions of the lower court made on November 23, 2023, and the bench warrant issued on July 2, 2024, respectively.

Specifically, the appellants are praying the court to hold that the lower court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the case after considering the appellants’ notice of preliminary objection.

Alternatively, the appellants are praying for an order remitting the case back to the chief judge of the Federal High Court to assign the case to another judge of the Federal High Court to entertain the appellant’s notice of preliminary objection.

The appellants, through their lawyer,  Igbinedion, further argued that Section 330 (a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 only empowers the lower court to make such order(s) as it thinks fit for the proper custody of property pending the conclusion of proceedings or trial.

He stated that the lower court made the order to deliver the appellants’ trucks into the custody of the prosecution without hearing from the appellant on the issue, contesting that it was contrary to the applicant’s fundamental rights to a fair hearing, which is guaranteed by Section 36 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as Amended).

He further argued that “Contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 330 (a) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015, none of the two trucks in relation to which the lower court made the order was produced before the lower court at the time of making the order or at any time at all.

“The lower court refused to listen to arguments or the objection of the appellant’s counsel on the 1st respondent’s ex parte and even with the information that another judge (Justice Kala) of the same Federal High Court had earlier made a similar order in favour of the first respondent in relation to the said two trucks,” he stated.

He submitted that the order made by Justice Kala in favour of the first respondent was still valid, even though being challenged by the appellant at all maternal times.

Consequently, he urged the court to set aside the bench warrant issued by Justice Akintayo Aluko on July 2, 2024, in charge number FHC/L/631C/2023 against the appellant.