A Lagos State High Court sitting in Ikeja has discharged and acquitted Ibrahim Usman, who spent about a decade in custody without conviction, after finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of defilement against him beyond reasonable doubt.

Delivering judgment yesterday, Justice Rahman Oshodi held that the prosecution’s case was “manifestly insufficient” and failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 137 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State.

The court strongly condemned both the prosecution and custodial authorities, describing the prolonged detention of the defendant as a grave institutional failure within the criminal justice system.

Usman was arrested on June 14, 2016, over allegations of unlawful sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl in February 2016 in Ipaja, Lagos. However, charges were not filed until March 2017.

The court found that when the case came up for arraignment, authorities at the Maximum Security Custodial Centre, Kirikiri, repeatedly failed to produce the defendant before the court despite several production warrants issued by different judges, including Justice Hakeem Oshodi and later Justice Ibikunle Nwaka, now of the Court of Appeal.

The failure persisted from October 2017 to February 2020, leading to the case being struck out on February 13, 2020, for want of diligent prosecution after the defendant was not produced in court.

It later emerged that the prosecution itself was unaware that Usman had remained in custody throughout the period.

Even after the case was reassigned, the custodial authorities again failed to produce him between December 2023 and January 2024, despite repeated court orders.

He was eventually brought before the court on March 14, 2024.

Justice Oshodi described the conduct of the custodial authorities as “persistently deficient”, stressing that a production warrant is a lawful command that must be obeyed.

“It is particularly troubling that the custodial centre continued to detain the defendant for years without satisfying itself as to the legal basis for his continued incarceration,” the judge held.

At trial, the prosecution called only one witness, a medical doctor from the Mirabel Centre, who merely interpreted a report prepared by another doctor who neither testified nor tendered the report in evidence.

Under cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not examine the alleged victim.

The court held that, in the absence of both the medical report and the testimony of its maker, the evidence could not sustain the charge.

It further noted that the prosecution failed to establish the age of the alleged victim or link the defendant to the alleged offence, while key witnesses, including the complainant, were not called.

“The prosecution’s evidence was so manifestly insufficient that it required no answer,” Justice Oshodi held while upholding the defendant’s decision to rest his case on that of the prosecution.

The judge emphasised that the courts were not responsible for the prolonged delay, attributing the failure to the prosecution’s inability to promptly file charges and track the defendant, as well as the custodial authorities’ repeated disobedience of court orders.

He highlighted the role of the Lagos Criminal Information System (LCIS) and the Offenders’ Biometrics System, noting that they were designed to prevent such occurrences by tracking defendants across the justice system.

The court observed that Usman remained in custody for years after his case had been struck out, an anomaly discovered only when the LCIS flagged his continued detention, prompting the relisting of the case.

“The fate of this defendant illustrates what happens when that system does not exist or is not used. He was detained at public expense for years without trial,” the judge said.

Justice Oshodi stressed that prosecutors must file charges promptly and keep track of defendants, while custodial authorities must comply with court orders and continually justify the legal basis for detention.

He subsequently pronounced the defendant not guilty and ordered his immediate release.

“The defendant is not guilty. I discharge and acquit him. He is to be released from custody forthwith,” the court held.