Gang-Rape: Absence Of Defence Counsel Stalls Trial Of Five UNILAG Students

The absence of defence counsel has stalled the trial of five students accused of gang-raping and blackmailing a fellow student, at an Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court.
UNILAG’s reports have it that Moboluwaji Omowole, 19, Chuka Chukwu, 19, Peace Nwakanma, 19, James Aguedu, 20 and Josephine Osemeka, 20, students of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) were arraigned over defilement of a child, permitting the defilement of a child in a premises, and pro-curation.
Court fixes November 15 to hear EFCC amended charge against ex presidential aide, Dudafa Proceedings yesterday, scheduled for the cross-examination of the complainant, name withheld, could not hold due to the absence of Mr Bisi Ademulegun, the new defence counsel to Omowole, the first defendant.
Ademulegun, had written to the court seeking for a short adjournment because he was Omowole’s new defence counsel and had just been briefed on the case.
He noted that on the day scheduled for the continuation of the trial of the students, he had a case before the Court of Appeal in Ibadan. Reacting to the letter, which was read in court by Justice Abiola Soladoye, Mr Jide Martins, a Deputy Director of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and lead prosecutor in the case requested that the trial should go ahead.
Martins noted that the DPP intended to re-arraign the students on fresh charges. “I am of the view that the matter is due for hearing and the delay occasioned by the learned gentleman is unfortunate, as this case has been on since February 26. There is also an amended charge before the court,” he said.
The defence counsel, however, did not oppose Ademulegun’s request for an adjournment. Court sentences “Yahoo boy” to 1 month in prison for $29,000 fraud Mrs Abimbola Akeredolu (SAN) the defence counsel to Chukwu (second defendant) in supporting the request for an adjournment said; an accused is entitled to representation by counsel.’’
“If a counsel is absent for cogent reasons, I do not know what the hurry is. We were just served with the amended charge on April 29, which was on Monday. We will not be opposing the adjournment.”