₦airaland Forum

Following the seemingly erroneous judgement as it were; of the High Court of Lagos State of Nigeria in the media celebrated charge No: ID /3752c/17, between THE STATE OF LAGOS VERSUS OLAIDE IBRAHEEM, delivered on the 9th day of October, 2020, by Justice Ipaye, wherein the Appellant (Olaide Ibraheem) was convicted of the offences of forgery and forcible entry but discharge of the offence of criminal damage to property. (With regards to the ownership of a property situated at No. 2 Baba Yusuf Close, Alausa, Ikeja ,Lagos)
The Appellant, Olaide Ibrahim who apparently was discontented with what appeared to be a miscarriage of justice in her case, had in agreement with her counsel ,Gbenga Ojo approached the Court of Appeal Lagos, to seek proper justice. They filed in an Appeal on 2/11/2020.
The Respondent Attorney, in a counter motion, also, filed in a Preliminary objection to the Appeal, it was however set aside, based on the superior argument of the defense counsel.
After a detailed study of the case, the lead Judge, in the Appeal, Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada drew out series of faults in the judgement of the lower court , for example, the Honourable Judge did pointed out that: " In this case, the Respondent tendered Exhibit 12 as the authentic deed of assignment while Exhibit 2 was tendered as forged document.
In Exhibit 12 Dr. Olufemi Osanyintolu is the Assignee ,whereas in Exhibit 2 Dr. Olufemi Osanyintolu and Olaide Ibrahim were described as Assignees.
The learned counsel to the Appellant, relying on Section 135 of the Evidence Act, contended that the trial court totally left out the consideration of crucial issue of whether the Appellant was able to cast doubt in the case for the Prosecution which doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the Appellant".
Furthermore, the lead Judge observed that " for example, the Prosecution listed Musa Yusuf as a witness to testify that he and his father did not sign Exhibit 2. That the signature of his father and himself were forged on Exhibit 2. The State refused to call him as a witness, the defence called him and he testified on Oath that he signed Exhibit 2.
On Exhibit 12 submitted in evidence by Dr. Osanyintolu , Musa Yusuff stated that his father and himself did not sign it.
There is also a Surveyor who prepared Exhibit 2 and 12. He was listed by the State as a witness to testify that he did not prepare Exhibit 2. This witness was also not called by the State, but he testified for the defendant and he confirmed to have prepared the two survey plans. I.e. He prepared the survey in Exhibit 2 first, in joint names of the Prosecution and Appellant after which the Complainant came back and asked him to prepare another survey in his name alone.
The question that comes to mind at this juncture is, can we say the survey plan was forged by the Appellant. I don't think so.
Furthermore, the lawyer who prepared Exhibit 2, Adedamola Adepegba was listed as a witness for the State to testify that he did not prepare Exhibit 2, but the State did not allow him.
The head of Police team that concluded the investigation was listed by the State to give evidence on Police investigation. He was not called, but he testified for the the defence against the State.
The lead Judge, Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada, haven studied the case of the lower court thoroughly, drew his conclusion.
"The conclusion to be drawn from the analysis above is that, the testimonies of these witnesses created doubt in the case of the Prosecution but were not taken into consideration in the determination of the case.
"In this appeal, there is no evidence by all the Prosecution witnesses that all the five signatures on Exhibit 2 were forged. The DW2 and DW3 removed totally the possibility of the defendant forging Exhibit 2. It is fatal to the case of the Prosecution.
Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that offence of "forgery" was not proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue Numbers 1and2 are hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
There is merit in this appeal and it is allowed.
The judgement of the Trial Court in Charge No: ID/3752c/17: Between: THE STATE OF LAGOS VERSUS OLAIDE IBRAHIM delivered on the 9th day of October, 2020 and the sentence passed on the Appellant are hereby set aside. In its place, the Appellant is discharged and acquitted on the charges of "forgery" and "forcible entry" . Fines paid (If any) muse be refunded to the Appellant within 30 days from today. Appeal Allowed"
He concluded.
Justice Folashade Ayodeji Ojo, in her ruling, frowned at the manner at which the lower court dispensed justice in the case, said she had the benefit of reading in draft, the lead judgment delivered by the lead judge, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA. "The Appellant, Olaide Ibrahim was arraigned, tried and convicted for the offence of forgery and forcible entry. A careful perusal of the printed Record however revealed that evidence adduced in Appellant's defence was not properly evaluated by the trial court." She pointed out some instances in the judgement of the trial court, where evidences of the Appellant were subverted. "For instance, the Appellant who was alleged to have forged a Deed of Assignment (Exhibit 2) called evidence of persons who signed the document. The signature of the defence witnesses are on Exhibit 2. The evidences of these witnesses punctured the allegation of forgery made against the Appellant. On the other allegation of forcible entry, the learned trial judge, Justice Ipaye, in her judgment, found there was no evidence that there was struggle to gain entry into the property in issue. Having so found, he turned round to conclude that the Appellant forcibly entered the same property. He cannot do that" She quipped. While rounding up on the case, Justice Ojo posited that " It is glaring from the evidences adduced by the Appellant's witnesses particularly DW2 and DW3, that there are missing gaps in the Prosecution's case. The effect of this is that the evidence of the Prosecution is inadequate to convict the Appellant. The Prosecution failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. She is therefore entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt.
For this reason and the more detailed reasons in the lead judgement, I too allow this appeal and set aside the judgement of the trial court. I abide by the consequential orders contained in the lead judgement. " She affirmed.
Justice Abba Belli Mohammed in his ruling also pointed out the elementary principle of evidence, which states that, in a criminal trial, the Prosecution has the burden of establishing the guilt of the Defendanr beyond reasonable doubt. "In the lead judgement just deliveredby my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada,JCA, he has succinctly x-rayed the evidence and graphically shown how the learned trial judge had left out some part of evidence given by witnesses who were listed by the Respondent but who ended up giving evidence in favour of the Appellant, and how the failure to evaluate such evidence had led to a perverse conclusion and occasioned miscarriage of justice..." He went further to conclude that " it is in concurrence with the lead judgement that I join in allowing this appeal. I also set aside the judgement of the trial court and discharge and aquitaine the Appellant of the offences of forgery and forcible entry . I abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgement " He concluded.

The wheel of justice may grind slowly, according to popular saying, but justice will always prevail, as it is in this case. Worth of note however, was the seemingly prejudice role of the State's Ministry of Justice, which brazenly expressed its support for newly appointed Permanent Secretary, Femi Oke Osanyintolu, as against the neutrality it was meant to observe in the matter, given that Olaide Ibrahim and Femi Oke Osanyintolu are both civil servants.

Following the seemingly erroneous judgement as it were; of the High Court of Lagos State of Nigeria in the media celebrated charge No: ID /3752c/17, between THE STATE OF LAGOS VERSUS OLAIDE IBRAHIM, delivered on the 9th day of October, 2020 wherein the Appellant (Olaide Ibrahim) was convicted of the offences of forgery and forcible entry but discharge of the offence of criminal damage to property. (With regards to the ownership of a property situated at No. 2 Baba Yusuf Close, Alausa, Ikeja ,Lagos)
The Appellant, Olaide Ibrahim who apparently was discontented with what appeared to be a miscarriage of justice in her case, had in agreement with her counsel ,Gbenga Ojo approached the Court of Appeal Lagos, to seek proper justice. They filed in an Appeal on 2/11/2020.
The Respondent Attorney, in a counter motion, also filed in a Preliminary objection to the Appeal, it was however set aside, based on the superior argument of the defense counsel.
After a detailed study of the case, the lead Judge, in the Appeal, Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada drew out series of faults in the judgement of the lower court , for example, the Honourable Judge did pointed out that: " In this case, the Respondent tendered Exhibit 12 as the authentic deed of assignment while Exhibit 2 was tendered as forged document.
In Exhibit 12 Dr. Olufemi Osanyintolu is the Assignee ,whereas in Exhibit 2 Dr. Olufemi Osanyintolu and Olaide Ibrahim were described as Assignees.
The learned counsel to the Appellant, relying on Section 135 of the Evidence Act, contended that the trial court totally left out the consideration of crucial issue of whether the Appellant was able to cast doubt in the case for the Prosecution which doubt ought to be resolved in favour of the Appellant".
Furthermore, the lead Judge observed that " for example, the Prosecution listed Musa Yusuf as a witness to testify that he and his father did not sign Exhibit 2. That the signature of his father and himself were forged on Exhibit 2. The State refused to call him as a witness, the defence called him and he testified on Oath that he signed Exhibit 2.
On Exhibit 12 submitted in evidence by Dr. Osanyintolu , Musa Yusuff stated that his father and himself did not sign it.
There is also a Surveyor who prepared Exhibit 2 and 12. He was listed by the State as a witness to testify that he did not prepare Exhibit 2. This witness was also not called by the State, but he testified for the defendant and he confirmed to have prepared the two survey plans. I.e. He prepared the survey in Exhibit 2 first, in joint names of the Prosecution and Appellant after which the Complainant came back and asked him to prepare another survey in his name alone.
The question that comes to mind at this juncture is, can we say the survey plan was forged by the Appellant. I don't think so.
Furthermore, the lawyer who prepared Exhibit 2, Adedamola Adepegba was listed as a witness for the State to testify that he did not prepare Exhibit 2, but the State did not allow him.
The head of Police team that concluded the investigation was listed by the State to give evidence on Police investigation. He was not called, but he testified for the the defence against the State.
The lead Judge, Justice Jimi Olukayode Bada, haven studied the case of the lower court thoroughly, drew his conclusion.
"The conclusion to be drawn from the analysis above is that, the testimonies of these witnesses created doubt in the case of the Prosecution but were not taken into consideration in the determination of the case.
"In this appeal, there is no evidence by all the Prosecution witnesses that all the five signatures on Exhibit 2 were forged. The DW2 and DW3 removed totally the possibility of the defendant forging Exhibit 2. It is fatal to the case of the Prosecution.
Consequent upon the foregoing, I am of the view that offence of "forgery" was not proved against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue Numbers 1and2 are hereby resolved in favour of the Appellant and against the Respondent.
There is merit in this appeal and it is allowed.
The judgement of the Trial Court in Charge No: ID/3752c/17: Between: THE STATE OF LAGOS VERSUS OLAIDE IBRAHIM delivered on the 9th day of October, 2020 and the sentence passed on the Appellant are hereby set aside. In its place, the Appellant is discharged and acquitted on the charges of "forgery" and "forcible entry" . Fines paid (If any) muse be refunded to the Appellant within 30 days from today. Appeal Allowed"
He concluded.
Justice Folashade Ayodeji Ojo, in her ruling, frowned at the manner at which the lower court dispensed justice in the case, said she had the benefit of reading in draft, the lead judgment delivered by the lead judge, Jimi Olukayode Bada, JCA. "The Appellant, Olaide Ibrahim was arraigned, tried and convicted for the offence of forgery and forcible entry. A careful perusal of the printed Record however revealed that evidence adduced in Appellant's defence was not properly evaluated by the trial court." She pointed out some instances in the judgement of the trial court, where evidences of the Appellant were subverted. "For instance, the Appellant who was alleged to have forged a Deed of Assignment (Exhibit 2) called evidence of persons who signed the document. The signature of the defence witnesses are on Exhibit 2. The evidences of these witnesses punctured the allegation of forgery made against the Appellant. On the other allegation of forcible entry, the learned trial judge, Justice Ipaye, in her judgment, found there was no evidence that there was struggle to gain entry into the property in issue. Having so found, he turned round to conclude that the Appellant forcibly entered the same property. He cannot do that" She quipped. While rounding up on the case, Justice Ojo posited that " It is glaring from the evidences adduced by the Appellant's witnesses particularly DW2 and DW3, that there are missing gaps in the Prosecution's case. The effect of this is that the evidence of the Prosecution is inadequate to convict the Appellant. The Prosecution failed to prove the case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. She is therefore entitled to be given the benefit of the doubt.
For this reason and the more detailed reasons in the lead judgement, I too allow this appeal and set aside the judgement of the trial court. I abide by the consequential orders contained in the lead judgement. " She affirmed.
Justice Abba Belli Mohammed in his ruling also pointed out the elementary principle of evidence, which states that, in a criminal trial, the Prosecution has the burden of establishing the guilt of the Defendanr beyond reasonable doubt. "In the lead judgement just deliveredby my learned brother, Jimi Olukayode Bada,JCA, he has succinctly x-rayed the evidence and graphically shown how the learned trial judge had left out some part of evidence given by witnesses who were listed by the Respondent but who ended up giving evidence in favour of the Appellant, and how the failure to evaluate such evidence had led to a perverse conclusion and occasioned miscarriage of justice..." He went further to conclude that " it is in concurrence with the lead judgement that I join in allowing this appeal. I also set aside the judgement of the trial court and discharge and aquitaine the Appellant of the offences of forgery and forcible entry . I abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgement " He concluded.

As subversive and controversial as the judgement of the Lagos High court appeared in this case, it is incumbent on the Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu led government to beam its searchlight on the heinous activities of some individuals in the State's Ministry of justice, who in their avarice, will stop at nothing to ensure that justice was served only to the highest bidder.
To preclude further miscarriage of justice in the interest of the common man on the street, those bad eggs in the corridor of justice and their co-travellers must be fished out and prosecuted.

Attached are True certified copy of judgement

Why would you walk straight into somebody else's apartment without knocking, even if the door was opened, let alone walk directly to their bedroom, what if what you saw did not happen and badge in on the man naked? Abi you self been wan collect?

An Igbosere High Court has fixed April 1 to deliver judgment in a criminal case of forgery involving a 45m Naira property between Dr Olufemi Oke-Osanyintolu, Director-General of Lagos State Emergency Management Agency (LASEMA) and Olaide Ibrahim, a Director in the Lagos State govenment.
Olaide, was arraigned on May 22, 2017, on a three-count charge of forgery, forcible entry and criminal damage to a property.
The property in dispute is located at No. 1, Baba Yusuf Close, Alausa, Lagos.
Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye fixed the judgment date after both the lead state prosecutor, Mr Akin George and defence counsel, Mr Gbenga Ojo, addressed the court after closing their cases.
Addressing the court, Ojo in his submission said that the prosecution did not prove its case against Ibraheem beyond reasonable doubt because vital witnesses were not summoned to testify in court.
Ojo further explained that the law required the prosecution to call a vital witness, whose evidence would prove vital ingredients of the offence.

“If the prosecution defaults in calling such a witness to give evidence to prove the elements of the charges, the failure will be fatal to his case, which must be proved beyond reasonable doubt,” he said.
Recall the prosecution lawyer had proposed to call 11 witnesses as detailed in the proof of evidence but could only come up with four. Luqman Salami Adeyemi, In yang Ubom, Dr. Femi Oke Osanyintolu and Chief Reginald Odunze.
Interestingly, four out of the eleven listed witnesses chosed to testify for the defendant; Surveyor Adereti Oyewale, Musa Baba Yusuf, CSP Toyin Sulaimani.
Responding, the prosecutor said, “the law provides that the prosecution is not bound to call all witnesses listed, provided the prosecution has called credible witnesses that will sustain their case.”
George said the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the court should not attach any credibility to the forensic report tendered in evidence by the defence.
While giving his testimony, Oke-Osanyintolu told the court that he and the defendant were former lovers and top civil servants in the employment of the Lagos State Government.

Dr. Femi said that during the course of his relationship with the defendant, he needed accommodation for his sick mother and had sought Ibraheem’s assistance in getting a befitting accommodation.

He said the defendant negotiated the purchase of the property on his behalf for N45million from the former owner, one Baba Yusuf in Kano.

The LASEMA DG further told the court that he had made payments in installments for the property via Mr Luqman Salami, his personal assistant, and paid a balance of N1. 5million the day the Deed of Assignment was signed.

“Five people including the defendant, were present when the Deed was signed but only four persons, myself, the owner of the property, Baba Yusuf; his son, Musa Yusuf and Luqman, my personal assistant signed the document,.

The defence lawyer, Mr. Ojo listed 6 witnesses: Christopher, Musa Yusuf, Surveyor Adereti, CSP Toyin Sulaimani, Olaide Ibraheem and Mr. Raphael Onwuzuligbo. They all appeared before the court to testify in favour of the defendant.

Christopher who worked with the normal complainant, Dr. Osanyintolu, (he managed all his information and documents) in his testimony said Dr. Femi gave him exhibit 2 to save in his compute, the document is deed that contained the name of the complainant and the defendant, given the ill treatment mated out to the defendant, he decided to send her the copy of the document through cloud.
Musa Yusuf, the son of the property owner also testified in court that he was a party to the execution of the exhibit 2. He confirmed that exhibit 2 was not forged and that the defendant was a signatory to the document.
Surveyor Adereti testified that he actually prepared the survey that bear the name of the complainant and the defendant and that the complaint later approached him to prepare another survey bearing his name only which he obliged after he paid the survey fee.
CSP Toyin the leader of the team that concluded the investigation of the case of forgery against the defendant in his testimony said, he needed to get Musa Yusuf and obtain his statement as a signatory to exhibit 2, he was resident in Abuja, so he invited Dr. Femi and the defendant to Abuja. The defendant was there but Dr. Femi was absent. Musa Yusuf confirmed that the property was sold to the coupl. He was shown the deed of assignment bearing the names of the complainant and defendant and he confirmed he signed the deed. In view of the development, Dr. Femi was asked to submit a specimen of his signature and that of luqman for further investigation, but they both have been on the run up till today.
Mr. Raphael Onwuzuligbo was the last witness in the case, testified that he was given the responsibility of identifying which signatures was authentic in exhibit 2 as submitted by the defendant and exhibit 12 submitted by the complainant. After due forensic analysis, it was discovered that the signature of persons in exhibit 2 was the authentic signature of
Olaide Ibraheem, while testifying in her defence, categorically said the property belonged to her.

She told the court that when she wanted to buy the said property, she visited the Baba Musa, the former owner of the property in Kano.

According to her, the original owner declined to sell to her due to religious reasons, and asked her to come with her spouse.

She said obliging the requests of Baba Musa, Oke-Osanyitolu had accompanied her to buy the property.
According to Olaide, four persons — herself, the owner of the property, his son and Oke-Osanyitolu signed the Deed of Assignment while Salami, Oke-Osanyitolu’s personal assistant was a witness.
She said somewhere along the line, they had a disagreement and both went their separate ways. However, she got wind of the fact that Oke-Osanyitolu had procured another Deed of Assignment for the property.
The defendant said that the new Deed did not contain her signature and that Oke-Osanyitolu was trying to register the new Deed at the Lagos State Ministry of Lands.
She denied illegally taking over the property from the complainant.
Justice Ipaye has fixed 1st April as the judgement date.

In as much as you have noticed that your problem started when you moved into your present apartment, my brother, pack out. I had similar experience, don't wait until you start begging for garri. Move out.

The High Court Room in Lagos was on Monday 21st October, 2019 filled beyond capacity in anticipation of what was supposed to be the final judgment in the long running legal tussle between Lagos State Ministry of Justice and Ms Olaide Ibrahim.
Following the testimony of the last witness in the case, on Monday 7th, October 2019, reporters and correspondence from print and electronic media thronged the high Court premises as early as 7am, in wait for the final judgment in the forgery case.
Self styled Director General, DG LASEMA, Dr. Femi Oke Osanyintolu, on whose interest the Lagos State Ministry of Justice is acting, was overtly present in the court roo. The defendant in the case, Ms Olaide Ibrahim was also in court alongside her legal team.
Though the court sitting for the day was scheduled to commence at about 9am, it however did not start until 12noon.





The highlight of the day was when DG LASEMA, Dr. Femi Osanyintolu, created a scene outside of the Court room as he accosted a reporter from The Sun newspaper, and demanded to know why the guy has been calling his phone. "You have been calling my phone and disturbing my peace, what exactly do you want from me, what is your business in this case and who invited you here? Dr. Femi asked.
The confrontation as it were, attracted the attention of other journalists who began to wonder why the DG LASEMA would ask such infantile questions, knowing that the said case was already in the public space.
"Sorry you don't know me, but I know you as the DG LASEMA, which happens to be a public office. Outside of that, I don't have your phone number, how and why will I call you? It is my beat to cover legal matters such as this, and I am here to do so for my organisation and you cannot stop me from doing my job" the reporter retorted.
"Moreover, the defendant in the case who was supposed to be the one in the offensive, is rather calm and confident. Is there something you don't want the media to know? " he aske.
As crowd began to gather at the scene, the LASEMA DG, stylishly walked away.

THE UNREPORTED EXCLUSIVE :

A High Court sitting in Igbosere, Lagos State on Monday 7th October, 2019, continued proceedings on the case bothering on falsification of document and forgery of signature between one Olaide Ibrahim (female) vs Lagos State Ministry Of Justice, who is standing in for self acclaimed Lagos State Emergency Management Agency, LASEMA, DG, Dr. Femi Oke Osanyintolu.

Recall this case instituted by Lagos State Ministry of Justice has been on for about four years running. According to reports, Dr. Osanyintolu had approached the Justice ministry with a petition against Ms Olaide Ibrahim, (a civil servant) on the grounds of forgery and falsification of documents in relation to a landed property, situated in the eyebrow Alausa area of Ikeja Central Business District.

The presiding judge, Justice Oluwatoyin Ipaye having settled in, commenced the day’s proceeding by asking the the court clerk to call on the last witness in the legal tussle to the dock. The witness, who is the forensic expert in the case, ASP Raphael Onwezuligbo while under cross examination testified that, documents submitted by LASEMA boss before the court were falsified, thereby giving credence to earlier submission of a Surveyor who admitted he prepared the fake documents on the request of Osanyintolu.

Giving a comprehensive account of his forensic findings, the retired ASP told the court that on the 20th of April 2017, Master Spartans Forensic Ltd received a letter from Gbenga Ojo & Co law firm alongside other documents.

He (Raphael) told the court that the request on the letter was that the documents be examined, compared and determined if the signatures marked on the documents F which is the Deed of assignment of 23rd March 2015 in which Alhaji M.B Yusuf and Dr Olufemi Oke were signatories and the 2nd deed of assignment of 2011 marked F1, between Dr Olufemi Oke, M .B Yusuf, Olaide S Ibrahim and one Tolu.

The retired ASP explained to the court that he was asked to determined first if the signatures on the two Deeds of assignment were by the same person.
Also if the handwriting marked D1 on the 2nd deed of assignment and the handwritimg and signature by Musa Yusuf on the document marked B2 which is a police statement were written and signed by one person.
Furthermore, to determine whether the signature marked on document F, C1 on F1 with the statement of Dr Olufemi Oke to the police marked C2 to C3 were signed by the same person and also whether the person that signed on column D of document F, D1 on document F1 and the statement to the police by one Lugman marked D2 were signed by the same person.
Also, to determine whether the person that signed E1 on document F1 is the same person that signed thr signature that is in the statement by Olaide S Ibrahim marked B2.
The witness informed the court that he conducted the scientic examination and comparison via a Fast Scanner analyser and a Doxi analyser under distinguished techniques.
Revealing his findings, Mr. Raphael said the signatures and handwriting in the relevant column of the document marked F, F1, B2,C2-C3, D2 and E2 potrayed inherent features of non identity and identity as follows.
That the signatory to the signature marked A on document F is not the same .
Also, that the writer and signatory to the handwriting and signature marked B on document F is not the same writer and signature that wrote and signed the handwriting and signature marked D on document F1 and B2.
That the person or signatory that signed the signature marked C on document F, and C1 on F1 is the same signatory that signed in the relevant document marked C2-C3
That the signatory to the signatures marked D on the document F, D, on document F1 is the same signatory that signed signatures in the relevant part of the document marked D2.
Finally, that the signatory to the signature marked E, on document F1 is the same signatory that signed the signature on document E2.
Mr Raphael concluded that based on his findings he wrote a report by effect and duly signed by him.
He also told the court that during the process, he used comparative tables marked 1, 1A, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and the tables contain the illustrations on how he arrived at the findings before submitting the report.
He thereby tendered the reports, comparative table and certification through his counsel to the court.
Recall one Baba Yusuf, who is the son of the original owner of the property in contention and co signatory to documents relating to the sale of the said property, was called in as witness during one of the sittings, and while being cross examined, some documents were presented before him and was asked to identify the ones that has his and his father’s signatures, the documents he identified as original turned out to be those submitted by the defendant in the case which invariably made the documents presented by Dr, Femi all fake.
In harmony with the last two witnesses, a prosecution officer who also appeared as witness in the case, did testified that, the earlier forensic report presented before the court was fake, he confessed that the personnel that carried out the forensic examination were induced with money and therefore compromised the report.
The defendant in the case, Olaide Ibrahim arrived the premises of the Court alongside her legal team, at about 8am, Dr. Femi on the other hand breezed in while the witness was being cross examined and was spotted jetting out of the court premises minutes after.
Further hearing on the case has been adjourned till October 21, 2019.

Wonder what the old man was doing with a prostitute? What moral lesson has he handed down to his children?