₦airaland Forum

Biodun1929:
How old was the girl?

The girl was a minor and that's what matters.

erniok:
That's true. The question is what does Yominstand to gain with this lie.

Yomi is a clown now

Pierocash:
If there was evidence , appeal court wouldn't have over turned the high court judgement

You did see the video?

dominique:
So we're going to use one flimsy Enugu case to exonerate all the sexual abuse men have been carrying out on minors. Because of one pesky case in Enugu, suddenly all pedophiles are innocent including this one that was caught live on cameras. Your brain needs to be checked. It's obvious there's nothing right on the left side and there's nothing left on the right side

Meanwhile just yesterday, 2 different men were exposed on social media posting about defiling minors. I guess those ones too are innocent

So the case of a man with two daughters accused by his own 'loving' wife for rape...is FLIMSY?

Lol...you will be alright last last!

Eloquency001:
Ki

I don't believe that, Baba Ijesha will surely get jobs in movies industry, he will continue with his carrier because we've had some his colleagues that got involved in drugs related issues many years ago whether framed or real are back in the business, it involves both male and female, and they are senior in the films industry. I intentionally refuse to mention their names.

No producer would feature him knowing how much is at stake to make movies..

No producer would want to take that risk in featuring someone who has been convicted of rape

Remember, drugs conviction is not as heavyweight as that of rape

BarrElChapo:
Read that section together with Section 31 of the Child Rights Act 2004, for your convenience I have copied it below and tell me if you still believe the age of consent is 13.

31. Unlawful sexual intercourse with a child, etc.
(1) No person shall have sexual intercourse with a child.

(2) A person who contravenes the provision of Subsection (1) of this section commits an offence
of rape and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for life.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section, it is immaterial that‐
(a) the offender believed the person to be of or above the age of eighteen years; or
(b) the sexual intercourse was with the consent of the child.

Read section 277 of the same act for the definition of a child, again provided below;

“ child" means, a person under the age of eighteen years”

Thee is NOTHING like Child Rights Act of 2004!!!

Dotherightthing:
Thee is NOTHING like Child Rights Act of 2004!!!

Dude you’re just being dramatic, I thought I could have a conversation but you’re an ass. It’s 2003. Don’t bother replying cos I won’t reply you again.

Hopefully you will sleep with a 13 old and will explain the law to a prosecutor soon.

BarrElChapo:
Dude you’re just being dramatic, I thought I could have a conversation but you’re an ass. It’s 2003. Don’t bother replying cos I won’t reply you again.

Hopefully you will sleep with a 13 old and will explain the law to a prosecutor soon.

Olllooddo!!!

How can a law of 2003 take precedence over a law of 2004

erniok:
That's true. The question is what does Yominstand to gain with this lie.

Yomi wants to mislead Nigerians that baba ijesha was vindicated before release. He knows majority of Nigerians don't understand the country's incarceration system, he want us to believe his pedophile friend was cleared of any wrongdoing and the charges were dropped. God shame him and his supporters. They went from God has vindicated baba ijesha to ehen, sebi he has been released. Their minds no go touch ground