Justice Prevails: Ekiti Court Delivers Landmark Judgment in Teacher-Student Abuse Case

Introduction

In a case that has sent shockwaves through the legal and educational communities in Nigeria, the High Court of Ekiti State on the 25^th of February 2025, delivered a landmark judgment in the case of The State of Ekiti v. Ajibola & Anor. This trial brought to light the disturbing realities of abuse of power within the education sector, emphasizing the importance of legal accountability, child protection, and judicial fairness in Nigeria. It also serves as a defining moment for the justice system in upholding the rights of minors against those entrusted with their welfare.

The Case at a Glance

A.G (1st Defendant) and O.A (2nd Defendant) were both teachers at All-Souls Anglican Grammar School, Ado Ekiti where 15-year-old O.L (PW1) and 17-year-old E.P (PW2) were schooling.

Sometime in 2019, while PW1 was still in JSS 3, the 1st Defendant approached her and pressured her to befriend or enter a relationship with the 2nd Defendant, which she declined. In response, the 1st Defendant initially resorted to intimidation, punishing her, and later attempted persuasion, pleading with her to accept his request. However, PW1 remained resolute in her refusal. The 1st Defendant also summoned PW2 at school, and in the presence of the 2nd Defendant, demanded that she date him. When PW2 rejected his advances, she began avoiding both Defendants. The 2nd Defendant then resorted to threats, warning PW2 that she would fail her final examinations if she did not comply with his demands.

In December 2019, the 1st Defendant instructed PW1 and PW2 to accompany him and the 2nd Defendant to an undisclosed location. He directed them to wear mufti over their school uniforms and provided each with N200, instructing them to leave the school and wait for him at BOVAS Petrol Filling Station along Bank Road, Ado Ekiti. PW1 and PW2 complied with these instructions. The Defendants later picked them up in a vehicle and drove them to Home & Away Hotel at Oke Ila, Ado Ekiti. There, they separated the girls into different rooms, where the 1st Defendant had sexual intercourse with PW2, while the 2nd Defendant did the same with PW1. After the incident, the Defendants returned the girls to BOVAS Petrol Filling Station and gave them another N200 each for transportation back to school.

Distressed by the ordeal, PW1 eventually confided in her mother, who promptly reported the matter to the school authorities. The Defendants denied the allegations.

The school conducted an investigation, followed by an inquiry by an Investigative Panel established by the Ekiti State Teaching Service Commission (TESCOM), the Defendants’ employer. The Panel found the Defendants culpable and recommended their dismissal. They were subsequently dismissed for gross misconduct and handed over to the Police for further investigation and prosecution.

During the police investigation, the Defendants were arrested and interrogated, where they denied the allegations. The Police also interviewed the victims, who maintained that they had been raped. PW1 and PW2 were referred to the Police Cottage Hospital, Ado Ekiti, for medical examinations, which confirmed that they had been sexually assaulted. Investigators also visited the crime scene at Home & Away Hotel and interviewed the hotel manager.

The Case before the Court

Following these findings, the Defendants were formally charged to court on the grounds of rape contrary to Section 31(2) of the Child’s Rights Law of Ekiti State (2012), and abuse of office contrary to Section 104 of the Criminal Code Law, Cap C16, Laws of Ekiti State (2012).

To substantiate the charges, the Prosecution presented a robust case, supported by four witnesses – O.L (PW1), E.P (PW2), Inspector Osanyinro Opeyemi (PW3), and Aribisala Kehinde (PW4). Additionally, the Prosecution tendered various exhibits, including the Defendants’ statements to the police, witness testimonies, and medical reports.

In their defense, the Defendants testified before the court, with the 2nd Defendant appearing as DW5 and the 1st Defendant as DW6. The 2nd Defendant also tendered exhibits in his defense.

The Issues for Determination

The learned Defendant’s Counsel in his Address formulated a sole issue for determination viz:
“Whether the Prosecution has led sufficient or any evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Defendants are guilty of the offences charged”

The learned Prosecuting Counsel also formulated a sole issue for determination as follows:
“Whether upon the totality of evidence adduced before this honorable Court the Prosecution has proved the offences of rape and abuse of office against the Defendants beyond reasonable doubt to warrant conviction and sentence’’

In the determination of the case, the Court considered the issue raised by the complainant as stated above.

The Arguments

The defense counsel argued that the prosecution failed to present admissible, credible, and convincing evidence to establish the defendants’ guilt as required under Section 135 of the Evidence Act, 2011. He contended that inconsistencies between the prosecutrix’s oral testimony and their extra-judicial statements created reasonable doubt, which should be resolved in favor of the defendants, citing Adamu v. State (2018) LPELR-44172. Additionally, he pointed out discrepancies between the crime’s date in the charge information and the prosecution’s evidence, arguing that such inconsistencies were fatal to the case. He further asserted that the statements from the victims’ mothers and the medical reports—submitted without the testimony of their makers—constituted documentary hearsay and lacked probative value, relying on Uko v. State (2019) LPELR-48779. The defense also maintained that the Court was obligated to consider all available defenses, including the defendants’ alibi and their claim that the rape allegations were a scheme by the vice principal to tarnish their reputation due to political rivalry. Finally, counsel concluded that the charge of abuse of office was unproven since it was contingent on a conviction for rape.

The state’s counsel argued that the prosecution had successfully proven the elements of rape and abuse of office beyond a reasonable doubt. He contended that rape is established by evidence of penetration, which was supported by the admissible medical report. He further asserted that the defendants could be convicted based solely on the victims’ credible testimony, provided the Court properly cautioned itself, citing Posu v. State (2011) LPELR-1969 (SC). Additionally, the counsel dismissed the defendants’ alibi defense, arguing that their claim of a fabricated conspiracy was baseless and lacked merit. He also maintained that any discrepancies in the case were minor and had no impact on the prosecution’s case.

The Reasoning of the Court

After considering the evidence and arguments presented by counsel, the Court identified the essential elements of rape under the Ekiti State Child Rights Law, under which the defendants were charged. It concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge. The Court also affirmed that a child victim’s testimony regarding her age is both admissible and reliable, citing James v. State of Lagos (2021) LPELR-52456 (CA) 60-65, and found that the prosecution had sufficiently established this fact.

The Court further ruled that the victims’ testimonies, supported by the medical report presented by the prosecution, established that sexual intercourse had occurred between the defendants and the victims. It held that any inconsistencies in the victims’ accounts were minor and had no impact on the case. Additionally, the Court affirmed the admissibility of the medical report under Section 55 of the Evidence Act, 2011. It also emphasized that, except in cases involving a child under the age of 14, corroboration of a prosecutrix’s testimony is not a strict requirement in rape cases. Concluding on this charge, the Court found that the prosecution had proven that the sexual intercourse was non-consensual. It reiterated the established principle that in rape cases, the victim is a competent witness, and her testimony is crucial in determining whether the act occurred by force and without consent, citing Ekpo v. State (1976) LPELR-1095 (SC) 6.

The issue of penetration in a rape case requires clear proof. The Learned Trial Judge emphasized that the essential element of rape is penetrative sexual intercourse. Penetration, in legal terms, involves passing into or through, often overcoming resistance. In the context of rape, it means the insertion of the penis into the victim’s vagina. Citing Nseudoh v. State (2012) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1787) 234 @ 246 (CA), the Court held that the prosecution must establish, through cogent and credible evidence, that the defendants penetrated the victims. It was further noted that penetration, even without ejaculation, is sufficient to establish the offense, and the slightest penetration qualifies as sexual intercourse, regardless of whether the hymen remains intact. This court relied on the case of Iko v. State (2011) 14 NWLR (Pt. 723) 264 and Posu v. State (2011) LPELR-1909 (SC) 23.

The Court noted that corroborative evidence, such as medical reports indicating injuries to the private parts or the presence of semen stains, can be useful in establishing a rape case. However, the absence of such injuries—aside from the lack of a hymen—does not undermine the credibility of the sexual assault claims, especially when medical examinations were conducted approximately two months after the incidents, reducing the likelihood of detecting any injuries sustained during the assault.

Regarding the charge of abuse of office, the Court outlined its key elements: that the defendant is a public officer, engaged in or directed an arbitrary act, and that such acts were prejudicial to the victim’s rights. After thoroughly reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had sufficiently proven these elements. The defendants, as teachers at the victims’ school, misused their positions to punish, threaten, intimidate, and ultimately rape the victims. The victims’ testimony in court remained unchallenged and unshaken by the defense.

The verdict

On the 25^th of February 2025, the Ekiti State High Court, coram judice A.O Familoni convicted and sentenced the 1st and 2nd Defendant to 20 years imprisonment, without an option of fine, for rape and two years imprisonment, without an option of fine, for abuse of office.

The sentences are to run concurrently with effect from the date of the Judgment.

Conclusion

In this landmark case, Justice Adeniyi Familoni’s role was particularly noteworthy. His unwavering commitment to a fair and impartial trial was evident in his meticulous evaluation of evidence and his balanced approach to ensuring that every testimony was given its due weight. By delivering a judgment that not only condemned the atrocities but also sent a clear message of zero tolerance for abuse, this judgment reassures the public that the legal system remains a beacon of justice for victims of sexual violence.

The dedication of the immediate past Attorney General of Ekiti State, Olawale Fapohunda, SAN was also visible in every facet of the prosecution; from the painstaking gathering of evidence to the strategic courtroom arguments that left no room for doubt. This rigorous approach ensured that the victims’ voices were not only heard but served as the cornerstone of the case, reaffirming the state’s commitment to justice and the protection of its most vulnerable citizens.

This case, tragic in its origins yet hopeful in its resolution, serves as a critical reinforcement of the responsibility of educators in safeguarding students’ rights. And as the legal community reflects on this precedent, one thing remains clear: justice, when served, strengthens the very fabric of society.

To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol