How vulcanizer defiled 15-year-old sister-in-law – IPO



An Investigating Police Officer IPO), Insp Olakunle Orebe, on Monday told an Ikeja Special Offences Court that a vulcanizer, Wasiu Ibrahim, defiled his wife’s 15-year-old sister.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ibrahim charged with defilement.

Orebe, while being led in evidence by the State Counsel, Mr Babajide Boye and Ms Inumidun Solarin, said he received the case of alleged defilement on Feb. 2, 2017 at the Gender Section, Police Command in Ikeja.

The witness said that the survivor told him that the defendant, who was her sister’s husband and had been living with them for five years, allegedly had sex with her.

He said that the survivor told him that the defendant defiled her  when her sister traveled for  a burial.

“The survivor said that her sister traveled on Jan. 1, 2017 for a burial.

“She said she was left in the house  with her sister’s three children and at midnight, the defendant told her to leave the couch she was not sleeping on and move to the floor.

“She said after a while, the defendant came, undressed her and defiled her,” he said.

The witness further told the court that the survivor told her class teacher about the incident on March 2, 2017.

He added that the defendant, upon arrest, said he did not know what came over him.

“I spoke with the defendant In the cause of my investigation and he said he did not know what came over him to have done what he did.

“I can not remember the number of statements that were recorded but the survivors statement was also recorded.

“The survivor was referred to Mirabel Medical Centre for  examination.

The survivor’s statement and medical report dated Feb. 14 were admitted in evidence.

The police officer told the court that the defendant made his statement voluntarily, adding that he wrote the statement on his behalf because the defendant said he could not write in english language.

The defence counsel, Mr Abdulrasheed Ibrahim, objected to the claim that the defendant made a statement at the police station.

Ibrahim argued that the defendant did not make any statement and he was forced to sign the statement tendered by the prosecution.

NAN reports that the court ordered a trial within trial to test the voluntariness  of the statement of the defendant.

In the trial within trial, the witness said that he wrote the defendant’s statement on his behalf after he told him he could not write in english language.

“The defendant spoke in pidgin and I recorded him in english,  in a very conducive atmosphere. The office where I wrote the statement was very open and people were moving up and down.

“We were eight in the room but I was the only one that interviewed him. He was okay while I was recording his statement. I put questions to him and also have him a seat in front of me.

“There was an air conditioner in the office. At  gender unit, we do not use battery on suspects. He gave me his statement voluntarily and he was friendly while making it my lord,” the witness said.

During cross-examination of the trial within trial, the witness said that the defendant did make the statement in February and he could not remember if a lawyer represented the defendant while he was in detention.

He added that the eight people in the office were his colleagues, adding that the office was transparent and the  people on the corridor could see what was happening in the office.

NAN also reports that the defendant, alleged that he was detained in a cell for two days until his brother arrived with a lawyer.

The defendant, however, denied the signature on the said statement.

Justice Ramon Oshodi, in his ruling, dismissed the trial within trial and admitted the defendant’s extra judicial statement in evidence.

“The defence counsel objected that the defendant was forced to  sign a statement and upon evidence giving by the defendant in the trial within trial, the defendant said he did not know anything about the statement and he did not append his signature.

“The defendant extra-judicial statement is hereby admitted in evidence and the trial within trialis hereby dismissed as it was not necessarily needed in the first place,” Oshodi said.

The judge adjourned the case until June 30 for the continuation of trial. (NAN)