Ochanya: Court Says Wife, Mother Of Alleged Rapists Have Case To
man sentenced to 30 days imprisonment ,COVID 19, mobile court, Oyo, borehole drillers, govt, July 6, High court, Ibadan, presidential executive powers, Rape, Ochanya, court
Share
The Federal High Court sitting in Makurdi yesterday dismissed the ‘no case to answer’ prayed by Mrs Felicia Ochiga- Ogbuja, wife of the Polytechnic lecturer who allegedly raped a 13-year-old Ochanya Ogbanje, who later died of complications arising from the rape.
Mrs Ogbuja, 43, was arraigned by the Federal Government through its agency, National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) on a two-count charge.
In the suit marked: FHC/MKD/CR/12/209, Mrs Ogbuja who is a staff at the Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo and who had filled no-case submission and she is standing trial on two counts;
“That you, Felicia Ochiga-Ogbuja (Female) 43 years of Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo, Benue State, sometime between 2014 and 2018, in Ugbokolo, Benue State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did omit to take action against the sexual exploitation of one Elizabeth Ochanya Ogbanje (Female) 13 years by your husband, Andrew Ogbuja and your son, Victor Ogbuja, thereby committing an offence contrary to section 13 (4) (b) of the Trafficking in Persons (Prohibition) Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.
“That you, Felicia Ochiga-Ogbuja (Female) 43 years of Benue State Polytechnic, Ugbokolo, Benue State, sometime between 2014 and 2018, in Ugbokolo, Benue State within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court did keep, detain or harbour one Elizabeth Ochanya Ogbanje (Female) 13 years, knowing that she is likely to be sexually exploited by your husband, Andrew Ogbuja and your son, Victor Ogbuja, thereby committing an offence contrary to Section 15 (b) of the Trafficking in Persons Prohibition Enforcement and Administration Act, 2015.”
Mrs Ogbuja, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Ruling on no-case submission, trial judge, Justice M.O. Olajuwon held that the prosecution had led substantial evidence to warrant the defendant to enter her defence.