An Ikeja Magistrates Court sitting Ogba, Lagos has struck out a sexual assault charge by the Police against a 42-year-old man, Mr Emmanuel Emeruwa.

Emeruwa was initially arraigned on a holden charge before the court in June for allegedly sexually assaulting his five years old daughter in his Lagos residence.

Emeruwa pleaded not guilty to the charge and was remanded in Police custody as the presiding Chief Magistrate, Mr B.O.Osunsanmi ordered that the case file be sent to the office of the Directorate of Public Prosecution, DPP, Lagos State for legal advice.

Following a legal advice issued by the DPP on June 24, 2024, Magistrate Osunsanmi held that the defendant has no case to answer and struck off the one-count charge against him.

The judgement of the court made available to our reporter stated: “Based on the advice of the DPP dated June 24, 2024, Reg No LIP/MISC/R/2024/114/8, it advised non-prosecution of the defendant. The defendant, Emmanuel Emeruwa is hereby struck out. Case dismissed.”

A copy of the legal advice signed by Lagos DPP, Dr Babajide Martin and sighted by our reporter showed that Police investigation didn't not established any prima facie case against the defendant.

The legal advice cited a family meeting in the duplicate case file where the mother of the victim had accused the suspect of sexually assaulting their daughter and later turned around to apologise stating that she made up the allegation out of anger.

The document reads: “After carefully considering the facts available in the duplicate case file, this office is of the view that a prima facie case of sexual assault by penetration contrary to Section 261 of the Criminal Law Cap. C.17, Vol.3, Laws of Lagos State 2015, is not disclosed against the suspect, PG B1-Emmanuel Emeruwa.

‘’”The facts as contained in the duplicate case file revealed that the suspect and the complainants are constantly having issues in their marriage leading to physical assault on the suspect.

“The complainant during one of the various meetings held by the family alleged the suspect of sexually assaulting the victim where the complainant eventually apologised that she made the allegation out of anger.”

The legal advice also stated that there was a gross contradiction between the medical examination carried out on the victim by Mirabel Centre and another medical examination conducted by WARIF.

Part of the document reads: “"The medical report from Mirabel Centre revealed blunt force penetration of the victim's Instruments (excluding penetration into her introitus) while the anal examination was found to be normal. The medical report from WARIP on the other hand found that the external female genital was normal, vagina was hyperemic and the hymenal membrane was not intact.

“The report further found that the anal was bruised at position 12 O'Clock and there were anal abrasions. It is the law that the guilt of a Defendant may be proved by direct eye witness account, confessional statement or circumstantial evidence which is direct, positive, compelling and unequivocal.

“There are none of these modes available in this case. The eye-witness account of the victim relates to touching of her front bumbum, the circumstantial evidence relating to the examination of the victim are contradictory, while one found blunt force penetration of the victim's Instruments (excluding penetration into her introitus) and also finding the anal to be normal, the other report found the genital normal, the vagina hyperemic and the hymenal membrane was not intact.

“It is important to note that even the victim did not mention that the Suspect or anyone touched or penetrated her anus. The Suspect did not confess to the crime.

“There is material contradiction that casts serious doubt on the allegation against the suspect especially as it relates to the offence. The law is that if there are contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the contradictions go materially to the charge, doubt will be created and the benefit of it must be given to the accused person in which case he will be discharged.”

The mother should never go near those children till she dies ,she can not inherit any estate or properties let alone bear the husbands family name or his own name , may the remaining days of her life be filled with maggots and disgrace