Court adjusts date for Baba Ijesha’s sexual assault charge
Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Court in Ikeja, on Monday, fixed July 14, for judgement in the alleged sexual assault charge against Nollywood actor, Olanrewaju Omiyinka, popularly known as Baba Ijesha.
The embattled actor was arraigned before the court by the Lagos State government on a six-count charge of indecent treatment of a child, defilement of a child, sexual assault by penetration, attempted sexual assault by penetration and sexual assault.
Meanwhile, he had pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo, adjourned the case for judgement after the prosecution and defence counsel adopted their final written addresses.
The defence counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Dada Awosika, during the court sitting, asked the court not to ascribe any importance to exhibit A, a CCTV footage tendered by the prosecution. He further asked the court to dismiss and reject the evidence on the grounds that it had been tampered with.
Awosika was quoted thus:
“The original closed-circuit Television footage has been tampered with by the maker, Princess and according to experts, was not tendered as exhibit in the original form.”
“Exhibit A was illegally obtained as the defendant was invited because of an incident that happened seven years ago without any report made to the police.
“It is our submission that the age of the alleged victim is an issue and the court is bound to call the biological mother of the victim who is alive to determine the age of the victim either by birth certificate, through the biological mother or scientifically to determine her age because it was not specified.”
Dr Babajide Martins, the Lagos State Director of Prosecution, on his part, told the court that the testimonies of the seven prosecution witnesses cannot be thrown away.
He state, during a cross-examination of the CCTV expert, Lawrence Ayeni, he confirmed that CCTV footage cannot be manipulated or tampered with.
He urged the court to accept the testimonies of the experts who gave their best to help resolve the case.
“Written addresses cannot be substituted to live testimonies of experts given in the court and so we urge the court to sentence the defendant as charged.”
“The defendant admitted to having been with the girl in both the incidents that happened seven years ago and the one that happened in 2021. He also admitted to having sucked her fingers during the cross-examination.”