Many Nigerian prisoners tortured to confess, says Australian High Commission
Army drone strike in Kaduna deeply regrettable – Tinubu
NEITI report: Reps issue warrant of arrest on Kyari, Cardoso, others
In a significant legal development, Dr. Olufemi Olaleye, the Medical Director of Optimal Cancer Care Foundation, has approached the Court of Appeal, seeking to overturn his life sentence for the alleged defilement of his wife’s niece.
The appeal, filed on Nov. 24, lists 35 grounds challenging the conviction handed down by the Ikeja Sexual Offenses and Domestic Violence Court on Oct. 24.
Key Arguments in the Appeal
Lack of Documentary Evidence: Olaleye’s lawyer, Dr. Kemi Pinheiro, argues that the lower court erred by relying on the prosecution’s evidence without presenting any documentary proof of the alleged victim’s age, such as a birth certificate.
Inconsistencies in the Victim’s Testimony: Pinheiro contends that the alleged survivor’s statements were riddled with inconsistencies, emphasizing that she did not initially accuse Olaleye when interviewed by the police. The lawyer questions the credibility of the survivor’s claims made months after the alleged incident.
Contradictions in Medical Examination: Pinheiro challenges the court’s reliance on the testimony of Dr. Akinbunmi Oyebimpe, arguing that the medical examination was conducted months after the alleged assault, raising doubts about its relevance to the case.
Bias in Testimonies: Pinheiro asserts that the court erred in accepting the testimony of Olaleye’s wife, Aderemi, as she allegedly held a grudge against the appellant. He questions the court’s decision to dismiss Aunty Tessy as a vital witness and emphasizes that her testimony was crucial in understanding the events.
Legal Relief Sought
Dr. Olaleye’s lawyer seeks four reliefs from the appellate court which include:
Set aside the decision of the lower court.
Set aside the conviction and quash the life sentence against Olaleye.
Discharge and acquit Olaleye of the alleged offences.
This appeal underscores the complexity of the case, bringing attention to perceived legal lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The Court of Appeal is expected to carefully consider these grounds as it reviews the case.
