Double Victory For Bizman As Appeal Court Discharges, Acquits Him Of Defilement Allegation

The Lagos division of the Appeal Court, has discharged and acquitted a businessman, Onwuegbulam Nathaniel, accused of Defiling a teenage girl.

A three-man panel led by Justice Danlami Zama Senchi, discharged and acquitted Onwuegbulam Nathaniel of the defilement allegation, while delivering judgment in an appeal filed by his lawyer, Victor Opara (SAN), against the ruling of a Lagos High Court, which earlier dismissed his No-Case-Submission on the allegation in an appeal marked CA/LAG/CR/659/2023.

Prior to to the appeal court’s decision setting free the defendant, the justices of the court of appeal through the appeal filed by his counsel, Opara SAN had previously admitted the businessman to bail, after three failed attempts before Justice Ogunsanya.

The freedman was first arraigned before a Lagos Chief Magistrate’s Court, on a count-charge of raping the underaged girl sometimes in 2016, at No 5, Ajisegiri Stree Agodo, Lagos.

However, following a legal advice issued by the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP), he was later re-arraigned before Justice S. S Ogunsanya, of an Ikeja division of Lagos High Court, on the same allegation, in a charge marked ID/4436C/2017.

During the pendency of the suit, the DPP called four witnesses who gave evidence and cross-examined in the matter.

Upon closing of prosecution case, the businessman opted for No-Case-Submission, which was filed and argued by his lawyer,Victor Opara (SAN). But the presiding judge, Justice Ogunsanya, dismissed the No-Case-Submission, in a ruling delivered on July 4, July, 2023

Based on Justice Ogunsanya’s decision, the freed man through his lawyer, Victor Opara (SAN) filed an appeal to the Appeal Court, and submitted two grounds of appeal.

The ground for appeal are: “The Learned Trial Judge erred in law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when Her Ladyship dismissed the Appellant’s submission of No Case to Answer dated 3rd day of February, 2022 and ordered the Appellant to enter Appellant’s defence to the Charge at the lower Court, this occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice.

“The Learned Trial Judge erred in Law and occasioned a grave miscarriage of justice when the Learned Trial Judge failed to specifically indicate in Her Ladyship’s Ruling of 4th July, 2022 how the Appellant was linked to the commission of the offence contained in the Information dated the 21st April, 2017 but merely stated that the Appellant was linked to the commission of the offence without more.”

Opara SAN had told the Appellate court that the lower Court was improper by dishing out a generic ruling to the effect that the respondent [Prosecution] had made out a prima facie case against the appellant without indicating the necessary link of the Appellant.

Upon making above submissions and many other, he asked the court for following reliefs: “an order allowing this appeal, whilst consequentially vacating, setting aside, reversing, upturning and striking down the Ruling of the High Court of Lagos State Ikeja Judicial Division) dated 4th July, 2022, delivered in charge no: ID/4436C/2017 between the State of Lagos vs. Onwuegbulam Nathaniel per Honourable Justice S. S. Ogunsanya, dismissing the No-Case Submission filed by Counsel on behalf of the Appellant.

“By invocation of Section 15 of the Court of Appeal Act, Cap C.36 Revised Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2010;

“An order finding for the appellant as per the Submission of No Case to Answer dated the 3rd day of February, 2022 and consequently acquitting the Appellant.

“Further Order as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make or impose the entire circumstance of this appeal.”

However, in his response to the Appeal, Barrister K. A. Bamgbose, from the office of DPP argued that the learned trial judge correctly dismissed the no-case submission, as the prosecution had successfully established a prima facie case against the Appellant.

Bamgbose also argued that the evidence in the record of appeal demonstrated that the victim was a minor, aged 13 at the time of the incident, and that the Appellant was sufficiently linked to the offence of defilement. Adding that the victim identified the Appellant as the only adult in the apartment when she fell asleep and later woke up naked with a mucus-like substance on her lap and around her vagina.

He further submitted that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by the Medical Doctor (PW4), who testified that a medical examination revealed vaginal distortion, including exposure of the central orifice, consistent with sexual assault. Adding that the appellant had not satisfied the conditions required for a successful no-case submission,

He consequently, urged the Appellate Court to dismiss the appeal, affirm the trial Court’s ruling, and direct the appellant to enter his defence.

Delivering judgment in the appeal, Justice Danlami Zama Senchi, after thoroughly examined all the submissions of the parties, held that: “I have thoroughly examined the evidence presented by the Prosecution. Evidence of the Prosecution to my mind is too weak to establish a prama face case especially when and could not sail through the furnace of cross examination. A prima face case does not exist when the enters provided fails to establish the minimum legal requirements to substantiate the charge. In this defilement case, the following reasons could show the absence of a prima facie case.

“There is no doubt as argued by Learned Counsel for the Prosecution that the trial Court is expected to make a concise ruling to avoid evaluating evidence prematurely. However, this is not to be done to evade reality where it is obvious that a prima face case does not exist. The Trial Court before writing a concise ruling must fully digest the evidence before him. Where he finds a prima facie case, there may be no need for lengthy ruling but where it is crystal clear that a prima facie case and the essential ingredients of the offence is missing, the trial Court is bound to uphold the no case submission.

“On the whole, I find merit in this Appeal. Consequently, the defendant is hereby discharged. The Ruling of the Trial Court is accordingly set aside.”

Other members of the panel, Justice Ruqayat Oremei Ayoola and
Justice Polycarp T. Kwahar, agreed with the reasoning and conclusion reached by Justice Senchi.