On Thursday, Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo of the Ikeja Domestic Violence and Sexual Offences Court handed down a 16-year prison term to Nollywood star Olanrewaju Omiyinka, also known as Baba Ijesha.
Six counts of child defilement against Baba Ijesha include sexual assault, attempted sexual assault by penetration, sexual assault by penetration, and indecent treatment of a child.
According to the Lagos State Directorate of Public Prosecutions, who brought the accusations against the actor, the offences violated Sections 135, 137, 261, 202, 262, and 263 of the Lagos State Criminal Law 2015, which mandates life in prison for offenders.
Baba Ijesha entered a not guilty plea to each charge. However, a video tape from closed-circuit television describing his contact with the victim—who was allegedly a minor—was played in court.
Justice Taiwo gave the ruling, noting that the prosecution had not proven the defendant's guilt of all the accusations against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
On two of the six counts brought against the defendant, she did, however, find him guilty.
On June 24, 2021, the defendant was called to the stand. Six witnesses for the prosecution testified against him throughout the trial.
They were Princess, an actress and comedian, the 14-year-old minor, Mrs. Olabisi Ajayi-Kayode, a child expert, and Dr. Aniekan Makanjuola, a physician.
Others were Inspector Abigail Omane, a policewoman, and the investigating police officer, ASP Wahab Kareem.
On December 15, 2021, the DPP concluded its prosecution of the defendant; on April 1, 2021, Baba Ijesha questioned four witnesses and concluded its defence.
Baba Ijesha, the defendant, and Mr. Lawrence Ayeni, a professional in video creation and CCTV installation and maintenance, served as the defense's witnesses.
Additionally testifying for the defence were Mr. Olukayode Ogunbanjo, the defendant's friend and coworker, and Mr. Olukayode Olugbemi, a professional psychologist.
In adopting his final written address, dated May 12 and submitted on May 16, defence attorney Mr. Dada Awosika (SAN) pleaded with the court to throw out the case and release the defendant.
Awosika claimed that it was unlawful to collect the CCTV footage.
In the interest of justice, exhibit A, the CCTV film that depicted the incident, was illegally obtained, he had stated.
"The creator did not tender the display. Princess, the complainant, submitted it.
Since the defendant had been invited to the complainant's home, he claimed that the tape had been tampered with.
He further claimed that the defendant's purported confessional statement did not comply with Section 9 (3) of the Lagos State Administration of Criminal Justice Law (ACJL) of 2021.
According to the Evidence Act, laws may specify which documents are admissible in court. According to ACJL, a confessional statement must meet certain criteria before it may be used, which is not the case in this instance.
"We request that the confessional statement be rejected by the court. The defendant hurriedly agreed to take part in a quick performance that got him into trouble. Oh my God, my client was in trouble.
"Exhibits D and E don't agree when it comes to the girl's age in question.
"It is our submission, My Lord, that the biological mother inside the box must be called before the court so that she can give us her actual age; otherwise, the birth certificate or other scientific evidence must be presented. However, none of these things were done.
"The prosecution concurred that it was necessary to determine the minor's age. It has also been acknowledged, though, that nothing has been done to reveal the actual age, according to Awosika.
However, Dr. Babajide Martins, the director of the DPP, urged the court to find Baba Ijesha guilty of all charges in his final written address dated May 31.
He claimed that Mr. Lawrence Ayeni, one of the defence witnesses, told the judge that the CCTV recording could not be altered.
"On the subject of the CCTV recording, My Lord, the first witness for the defence (Ayeni) stated during the cross-examination of this honourable court that it cannot be altered and that the content of CCTV cannot be modified.
"Most significantly, he indicated he was unable to confirm whether the sexual assault occurred. These are the defence witness's testimony, My Lord.
"The defendant acknowledged being there with the girl for both the event that took place in 2007 and the one that occurred in 2021.
Additionally, he acknowledged sucking her fingers during the cross-examination.
"The primary legislation replaces the supplementary legislation with regard to ACJL.
"When I cross-examined the defendant on the need for a medical certificate, he said he had never met the medical doctor and had no issues with him.
Martins stated, "As a result, he has no motivation to mislead the court."
Martins further explained to the court that everyone under the age of 18 is considered a kid, and that the prosecution had established that the girl was one.
The DPP claimed that the defendant also acknowledged in court that he never declared he was following a script when he was arrested at Sabo and Panti.