A guardian, James Nse was discharged of a sexual offence allegation on Monday in a ruling that the defendant has no case to answer.
Justice Rahman Oshodi of the Lagos State Domestic and Sexual Offences Court, Ikeja delivered the verdict stating that the defendant has no case to answer.
Alleged sexual offence: The ruling
Ruling in a no-case submission filed by James Nse, through his counsel, Justice Oshodi stated that the prosecution failed to establish the essential elements of the sexual offence against the defendant.
Justice Oshodi said there is no evidence to prove the alleged victim’s age, the witness admitted she did not know when the Prosecutrix was born and did not witness the alleged sexual intercourse.
In his ruling, Justice Oshodi held, “There is no evidence to prove the Prosecutrix case as the witness has admitted that she did not know when the Prosecutrix was born and the evidence regarding the alleged sexual intercourse was not direct as the witness has said that she did not witness it.”
The defendant ran into trouble waters, when he was accused of defiling a-11-year-old child (names witheld) by having sexual intercourse with her sometimes between January and February 2014 at number 16 Adebisi Street, Shomolu, Lagos.
The defendant was thereafter arrested, charged to court by the Lagos State Government and was arraigned on December 3, 2021 when he pleaded not guilty.
He was initially arraigned before Justice Sybil Nwaka on 3rd December, 2019, when he also pleaded not guilty.
A sole prosecution witness, Mrs. Obi Elizabeth Elabo, a counsellor with the Lagos State Universal Basic Education Board, LASUBEB had testified that a teacher of Wesley Primary School, Shomolu, reported to her that the child had been molested repeatedly and that on that particular day, blood was coming out of her pant.
According to Mrs. Elabo, she told the court that she went to the school to interview the child where she said the child opened up to her that her sister’s husband had repeated sexual intercourse with her.
She said the case was reported at Pedro Police Station.
During the court proceedings, while she was led in examination-in-chief, the prosecution witness told the court, “As of 2016 the Prosecutrix was 11 or 12 years of age.”
She said that she was not the Prosecutrix mother and would not know precisely when the child was born.
She informed the court that what she told the court is what the Prosecutrix had told her and was not a witness to the alleged sexual intercourse herself.
Subsequently, the defendant filed a no-case dated and filed May, 20, 2025 submission, citing section 239 sub(1) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Laws of Lagos State.
The prosecution responded to the no case submission on June 16, 2025 filed by the defence.
At the no-case hearing, the parties adopted their written addresses and urged the court to resolve the contentions in favour of their clients.
The defendant urged the court to uphold the no-case submission and discharge the defendant while the prosecution asked the court to review it.
The court thereafter determined whether the prosecution has a prima facie case of defilement against the defendant.
After Justice Oshodi evaluated their submissions, the court considered that the prosecution witness did not know exactly when the alleged victim was born.
The judge noted “This admission reveals that her testimony regarding the Prosecutrix age was revealed to her rather than her own direct knowledge of it. In my view, the prosecution failed to establish this critical ingredient at face value.
“On the second element concerning the penetration of the Prosecutrix vagina or sexual intercourse, as case may be, the evidence before this court is based on Mrs. Elabo’s testimony that the Prosecutrix had informed her that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her repeatedly whenever she returned from school.
“However, in the first examination, Mrs. Elabo herself admitted that she did not witness the alleged sexual intercourse while she testified that blood was coming out of the Prosecutrix pant on the day she reported that there is no critical evidence before this court to establish the cause of such bleeding or confirm that it was a result of sexual intercourse.
“Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish both essential elements of the offence at face value.
“Firstly, there is no evidence to prove the Prosecutrix case as the witness has admitted that she did not know when the Prosecutrix was born.
“And secondly, the evidence regarding the alleged sexual intercourse was not direct as the witness has said that she did not witness it.
“This court finds that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case as it is required for the defendant to enter his defence.
Citing the deficiencies in the prosecution’s case of the alleged sexual offence, the court held that, “The prosecution’s evidence falls within the first and third conditions for upholding the no-case submission which I explained earlier in this ruling. Namely, the failure to prove an essential element of the alleged offence and secondly, manifestly unreliable evidence presented. Consequently, I resolve the issue in favour of the defendant. The no-case submission succeeds, the defendant is discharged, the court ruled.
