Appeal Court Upturns Conviction of Lagos Doctor, Olaleye, for Defilement of Minor

•Says lower court decision based on tainted, unreliable evidence

Wale Igbintade

The Court of Appeal, Lagos Division has discharged and acquitted the medical Director of Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, Dr Olufemi Olaleye, following a successful appeal, challenging his conviction and life sentence for defilement and sexual assault of a minor, his wife’s niece.

A three-man panel, comprising of Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada (Presided), Justice Abdu Dogo and Justice Mohammed Abubakar in a unanimous decision 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 (names withheld).

Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court convicted Olaleye in October 2023 for defiling his wife’s 16-year-old niece.

Justice Oshodi held that the prosecution, represented by the Lagos State Government, had proven the charge against the defendant, and that the evidence was compelling.

The judge emphasized Olaleye’s confessional statement before his former counsel, Mr. Olalekan Buruji, and the Divisional Police Officer at the Anthony Police Station in Lagos, as proof that he had committed the offences.

Dissatisfied, Olaleye, through his lawyer, Kemi Pinheiro (SAN), filed an appeal in November 2023, seeking to overturn Justice Oshodi’s judgment.

In his 35 grounds of appeal, the appellant, through his lawyer, contended that there was no direct evidence confirming the alleged victim’s age, asserting that the prosecution failed to provide any documentation to support its claim that she was 16 years old at the time of the offence.

Pinheiro contended that the alleged victim’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, noting that she did not initially accuse Dr. Olaleye of rape when making her statement to the police.

“Her testimony is full of contradictions,” the defence argued.

In response, the prosecution maintained that it had established the offences of defilement and sexual assault by penetration beyond a reasonable doubt, which justified the conviction.

The prosecution asserted that to prove the offence of defilement, it must be established that the child was underage and that the accused engaged in sexual intercourse with the child, regardless of consent.

The prosecution argued that all elements had been proven during the trial and that the trial judge relied on this evidence to convict the appellant.

They further insisted that there were no contradictions in the testimonies of their witnesses.

Resolving the issues, the appellate court presided over by Justice Jimi Bada held that the prosecution’s case lacked credible evidence that the alleged victim was a child.

The court noted that the prosecution failed to establish her age, creating reasonable doubt in their case.

The Appeal Court held that the trial court’s reliance on this hearsay evidence about the victim’s age was improper.

The court held “Age was critical, and 16 years is a borderline age, which the court could not determine merely by observing the witness,”

The court also highlighted that the trial court had failed to conduct a trial within a trial to determine whether the defendant’s statements were made voluntarily, even though the defendant had claimed they were written under duress.

The court further noted that the fact that the wife had access to Dr. Olaleye’s phone created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

The court pointed out that this raised the possibility that the email evidence may have been fabricated while the wife had access to the phone.

The panel concluded that the prosecution did not challenge the appellant’s argument that his wife had access to his phone, which could have led to the creation of false evidence. Furthermore, the court found that the prosecution failed to disprove that the WhatsApp messages in question may not have been sent by Dr. Olaleye.

The Appeal Court also criticized the trial court for disbelieving the appellant’s testimony, given that no contrary evidence had been presented.

The panel stated that the trial court’s decision was “perverse” and inconsistent with the evidence.

Justices Bada held that the lower court’s decision was flawed and ordered it to be set aside.

“With the resolution of all issues in favor of the appellant, the appeal is allowed and meritorious. The appellant is hereby discharged and acquitted, he added.