A Lagos State High Court judge, Justice Rahman Oshodi, has urged the state government to expedite the establishment of the Victim Assistance and Witness Protection Agency, warning that delays in setting up the institution have denied crime victims, particularly children subjected to sexual abuse, access to essential legal and protective support.
Oshodi made the appeal while delivering judgment in The State of Lagos v. Adio Serious, drawing attention to the Lagos State Victim Assistance and Witness Protection Law, passed by the ninth State House of Assembly and signed into law by the governor in 2024.
The legislation provides a framework for protecting the rights of crime victims, including access to assistance, compensation and other forms of support. It also seeks to safeguard witnesses against intimidation, retaliation and other threats associated with their participation in criminal proceedings.
However, the judge expressed concern that the agency mandated to implement the provisions of the law had yet to be constituted, leaving several of the protections envisaged by the legislation largely ineffective.
The issue of victim protection also featured prominently in another judgment delivered by the judge, in which he discharged and acquitted a 54-year-old man, Taiwo Oyelabi, who had been accused of raping his 21-year-old biological daughter.
Oshodi held that although the prosecution successfully established that the defendant had sexual intercourse with his daughter, it failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the act occurred without her consent, an essential element required to establish the offence of rape.
He further faulted the prosecution for not presenting the alleged victim before the court, stressing that she was the only person capable of providing direct evidence on whether or not she consented to the sexual intercourse.
Oyelabi was prosecuted on a one-count charge of rape under Section 260 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State 2015. The alleged offence was said to have occurred in November 2017 at No. 15, Community Road, Obadore, Igando, Lagos.
The defendant was initially arraigned on October 2, 2019, when he pleaded not guilty. Following the transfer of the case, the charge was read to him again before Justice Oshodi on December 9, 2021.
In establishing its case, the prosecution presented only one witness, Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) Iyabo Bakare, who narrated how the police received information on April 16, 2018, alleging that Oyelabi was having sexual intercourse with his biological daughter.
Bakare told the court that she accompanied another police officer to the defendant’s residence, where they subsequently took him and his daughter to the police station for investigation.
According to the witness, the daughter made a statement alleging that her father had been engaging in sexual intercourse with her since she started living with him.
The police officer also testified that Oyelabi admitted to the sexual relationship during interrogation. She said he subsequently repeated the admission before the Divisional Police Officer, claiming that he was having an affair with his daughter and had impregnated her.
However, the prosecution encountered difficulties in its attempt to introduce the defendant’s written confessional statement as evidence.
After conducting a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of the statement, Justice Oshodi rejected it on the grounds that the police failed to comply with Section 9(3) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State 2015.
The provision requires that a suspect’s confessional statement be recorded in the presence of a legal practitioner and a family member or through video recording.
Despite excluding the written statement, the judge drew a distinction between it and the separate oral admission allegedly made by the defendant before the Divisional Police Officer.
Oshodi ruled that since ASP Bakare claimed to have personally witnessed the oral admission, her testimony constituted direct evidence and was therefore admissible.
On the strength of that evidence, the court held that the prosecution had established that sexual intercourse and penetration occurred.
Nevertheless, the judge emphasised that proof of sexual intercourse alone was insufficient to secure a rape conviction. He explained that the prosecution was also required to establish that the act was without consent or that consent had been obtained through force, threats, fraud, deceit or other unlawful means.
The court also declined to rely on ASP Bakare’s account of statements allegedly made to her by the complainant and her twin sister during the police investigation, describing such evidence as hearsay.
Oshodi noted that the alleged statements could not independently establish the accusations against the defendant because the individuals who made them were not called to testify before the court.
On the allegation that Oyelabi had impregnated his daughter, the judge observed that the prosecution failed to provide medical documentation to substantiate the claim.
Although Bakare told the court that she personally observed the complainant’s pregnancy and estimated it to be approximately four months old, no medical evidence was presented to confirm the pregnancy or determine its duration.
The police witness had also disclosed that the medical report was transferred to the Gender Unit of the Lagos State Police Command. However, the document was never tendered before the court.
In addressing the prosecution’s failure to establish the absence of consent, Justice Oshodi relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kabiru Oriyomi v. FRN (2023), which highlighted the significance of direct testimony from an alleged victim when determining whether sexual intercourse was consensual.
The judge maintained that Oyelabi’s alleged oral admission established the occurrence of sexual intercourse but did not amount to an admission that the act was forced or carried out without consent.
He further held that the prosecution had not presented admissible evidence capable of establishing that the defendant intended to engage in sexual intercourse without the complainant’s consent.
Consequently, the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and discharged and acquitted Oyelabi.
Judge Revisits Other Cases of Alleged Sexual Abuse
In the judgment, Justice Oshodi also revisited concerns arising from other cases involving allegations of incestuous sexual abuse within families, referring to six separate matters handled by his court between October and December 2025.
The cases produced different outcomes, with some defendants convicted and sentenced to various prison terms, others discharged and acquitted, while one prosecution was struck out over a lack of diligent prosecution.
Among those convicted was Michael Segun Odumabo, who received a life sentence for defilement. Godwin Udo Akpan was sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for attempted sexual assault by penetration, while Sola Lawson received a seven-year prison term following his conviction for indecent treatment of a child.
Despite the disturbing nature of some of the allegations, Oshodi reiterated that criminal convictions must be based on credible and legally admissible evidence rather than suspicion.
He emphasised the constitutional presumption of innocence, reminding prosecutors that the responsibility rests on them to establish every essential element of a criminal charge beyond reasonable doubt before a defendant can be convicted.
The judge also raised concerns about the length of time Oyelabi had remained in custody, noting that he had spent more than eight years behind bars following his arrest on April 16, 2018, even though the prosecution called only one witness throughout the trial.
He commended the defendant’s counsel, Onome Akpeneye, for providing legal representation without charge since December 9, 2021.
Oshodi further criticised the poor handling and inadequate prosecution of criminal cases, warning that such shortcomings contribute to prolonged detention as defendants remain in custody for years without the prosecution presenting sufficient evidence to support the charges against them.
