Connect with us

news

Raped Chrisland schoolchild recounts ‘bad things’ done to her

Published

on

 

Chrisland

Child X, the pupil allegedly defiled by Adegboyega Adenekan, a 47-year-old Chrisland School supervisor, on Thursday testified at an Ikeja Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence court in Lagos and confirmed that she was abused.

Child X, who is now four-years-old, was two years and 11-months at the time the alleged defilement occurred serially in 2016 at the Victoria Garden City (VGC) branch of the school.

The trial which was slated to begin at 2pm, due to other matters, did not start until 3.26pm. It ended at 5.53pm.

Before Child X’s testimony, Justice Sybil Nwaka, had ordered that members of the public vacate the public gallery of the courtroom. However, she allowed journalists and lawyers to witness the testimony.

When Child X was brought into the courtroom, the judge rose from her bench to sit by a desk opposite Child X.

Justice Nwaka engaging Child X in small talk said: “I love your shoes, we are all your uncle and aunties here. Do you like the building? Do you know why you are here?”

Child X said: “I’m here to talk about the bad things Mr Adenekan did to me.”

Justice Nwaka responding said: “You know you are here to tell the truth, Jesus loves children and what do your Sunday School teachers tell you?”

Child X: “Always tell the truth.”

Before Child X took oath as a witness, Justice Nwaka repeated to her not to be afraid to tell the truth and that the people in the courtroom are all her friends.

The judge warned journalists against taking photographs, making recordings or revealing the identity of Child X.

The prosecution led by Mr Jide Boye, the Chief State Counsel led the child in evidence by asking a series of questions and getting the following responses from her.

Prosecution: “How old are you?”

Child X: “Four”

Prosecution: “How many schools have you attended?”

Child X: “Two”

Prosecution:” What are the names of the schools?”

Child X: “Chrisland, Grange School”

Prosecution pointing across the room to Adenekan: “Do you know him?”

Child X: “No”

Prosecution: “Who is Mr Adenekan?”

Child X: “When I go to class after recess, I see Mr Adenekan after recess”

Prosecution: “What did Mr Adenekan do to you?”

Child X: “He put his mouth in my wee-wee, the first time he did that, he took me out of the class. The second time, I ran. I tried to report to my teacher but my teacher did not believe me, so I reported to my mummy.

“First time he did it was inside his office which was the toilet, the second time he did it was in the hall which was outside.

“I did not like what he did, he put his hand in my wee-wee, he put his wee-wee in my wee-wee and he put his mouth in my wee-wee.”

The prosecution at this point proceeded to show Child X three photographs, one of which was Adenekan’s.

Child X identified Adenekan’s photograph.

Child X said: “This is Mr Adenekan, I remember how he used to greet me but I don’t know where he is.”

Prosecution: “How did you feel when he was doing it to you?”

Child X: “I felt I should tell my mummy, I felt pain.”

Prosecution: “When he did it, what were you wearing?”

Child X: “My Chrisland School uniform.”

Prosecution: “Can you describe how he did it to you?”

Child X: “He put his hand under my uniform, he put his hand in my wee-wee, pull my uniform down and it was really really paining me.

“When it was really really paining me, I screamed and he covered my mouth like this (demonstrated with hand over her mouth).

“I couldn’t do anything because he covered my mouth. When I was trying to remove it (his hand) he tightened my mouth.”

Prosecution: “Describe his office”

Child X: “I cannot remember.”

The defence counsel, Mr Olatunde Adejuyigbe (SAN) opposed the tendering as evidence, the three photographs shown to Child X during proceedings. According to him, the prosecution did not comply with Section 86 of the Evidence Act.

In his submission Boye told the court that in accordance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, photographs are no longer secondary evidence but primary evidence and as a result, the photographs should be admitted as evidence.

In a short ruling Justice Nwaka said: “I cannot agree more with the prosecution. These photographs do not have a certificate. I mark them tendered but rejected.”

While cross-examining Child X, Adejuyigbe asked her the following questions.

Defence: “Do you like to draw?”

Child X: ” I don’t know how to draw yet but I like to draw”

Defence: “You said something really really pained you, when you got home did you tell your mummy about it?”

Child X: “Yes”

Child X responding to Adejuyigbe’s questions, recalled some of her pre-school teachers at Chrisland School.

Defence: “Did anyone tell you before that he will kill you?”

Child X: “I don’t know what that means”

Defence: “Did you see Mr Adenekan today,?”

Child X: “I only saw him in the picture.”

Defence: “Do you know there are three tables in Mr Adenekan’s office? ”

Child X: “No”

Defence: “His office is not near your class, do you remember?”

Child X: “No”

Defence: “Have you entered Mr Adenekan’s office before?”

Child X: “Only when he did the bad things to me”

Defence: “Did he take anyone else with you?”

Child X: “No”

Defence: “Did you take your mummy to any corner?”

Child X: “No when I told her what happened to me, she changed my school.”

Defence: “Does your aunty (name withheld) bath for you?”

Child X: “Sometimes her but everytime my mummy.”

Defence: “Have you seen the police before?”

Child X: “I have seen them guarding the door at the gate before I enter my school gate.”

Defence: “Is there a doctor’s office at your school? ”

Child X: “Yes”

Defence: “Do you go to the toilet alone in school? ”

Child X: “When I want to go by myself they (teachers) still follow me”

Defence: “Did anyone tell you what to say when you get here?”

Child X: “No”

Earlier during the cross-examination of Child X’s mother, the video in which Child X was portraying her alleged defilement at a clinical psychologist’s office was replayed in court by the defence.

The mother (name withheld) admitted to the defence that some parts of the sessions of Child X’s interview with the clinical psychologist were not recorded.

“At the time she started drawing the private part, I can confirm to you that I was in the corner of the room and I only asked my child questions regarding the defendant’s name,” she said.

The mother also told the court that she reported to the police that the defendant took her child to a corner in the school where he allegedly defiled her.

“I mentioned the corner to the police and it is in my statement. Like I said before, I initially wanted to cover it up.

“I mentioned it to the school authorities but I later told them to forget it that it never happened.

“I was afraid of people like you (pointing at the SAN), it is a shameful act,” she tearfully said.

Justice Sybil Nwaka adjourned the case until May 21 for continuation of trial at 11am.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

news

Update : UK Lauds Nigeria’s Recovery Under Tinubu, Urges Others to Learn

Published

on

The United Kingdom (UK) has commended the economic reforms being implemented by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, describing Nigeria’s ongoing recovery as a success story that other countries can draw inspiration from.

The UK National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, made the remarks on Tuesday at the opening of the 4th UK-Nigeria Security and Defence Partnership Dialogue, held at Nigeria’s Office of the National Security Adviser in Abuja.

Powell said the reforms had required difficult decisions but were beginning to yield tangible results in economic growth and recovery.

“The economic reforms undertaken by the government have not been easy, but the remarkable progress Nigeria is making today in terms of growth and economic recovery demonstrates that difficult decisions can produce significant results. It is a success story from which many can draw inspiration,” he said.

The UK official described Nigeria as an “African superpower” whose influence and strategic importance would continue to grow as its population, capabilities and economic strength expand.

“For the United Kingdom, Nigeria is a vital partner—our foremost partner in Africa. Nigeria is an African superpower, a nation that is already influential and one whose importance will continue to grow,” he said.

According to Powell, the UK has strong confidence in Nigeria’s future and remains committed to deepening bilateral relations through a partnership founded on mutual respect, shared objectives and practical outcomes.

“We want that relationship to be a mature and equal partnership, one in which we share strategic objectives and work together to deliver tangible outcomes.

“We have immense respect for Nigeria’s leadership role within the country, across the region and throughout Africa, and we are committed to supporting that leadership,” he added.

Powell also acknowledged the professionalism and dedication of Nigeria’s security services in addressing the country’s security challenges, stressing that Nigeria remains indispensable to regional stability and collective security.

“Nigeria remains central and indispensable to regional stability and collective security. There is simply no substitute for Nigeria’s role in promoting peace and stability across West Africa and beyond,” he said.

He expressed satisfaction with the continued success of the UK-Nigeria Security and Defence Partnership Dialogue, describing it as a cornerstone of the two countries’ growing security cooperation.

Continue Reading

news

El-Rufai Confesses to Intercepting NSA Communications

Published

on

A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday heard that former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai admitted, in a television interview, that he intercepted the phone conversations of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.

The second prosecution witness in El-Rufai’s ongoing trial, Deji Adeyanju, told the court that he was at the same television station, awaiting his turn to be interviewed on February 16, the day El-Rufai allegedly made the administration on the same station.

Led in evidence by the prosecution’s lawyer, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), the witness quoted El-Rufai as saying in the course of the television interview: “We listened to the conversations of the NSA.”

El-Rufai is being prosecuted by the Department of State Services (DSS) over his alleged contravention of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act (2024) and the Nigerian Communications Act (2003) following his alleged interception of Ribadu’s phone conversations and compromising public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians.

Adeyanju, a subpoenaed witness, said he knew El-Rufai as a former governor of Kaduna State, adding that he issued a statement following reports that the former governor was to be arrested by security operatives.

Shortly after the television interview in which El-Rufai featured was played in the open court, Adeyanju confirmed it to be the one he saw in which the ex-governor allegedly admitted to the act.

Aladedoye also tendered a video recording of the interview featuring Adeyanju, which the court admitted.

Adeyanju said the DSS invited him after television interview and was asked to explain what happened while he was at the television studio.

The witness said he told investigators that he was present when El-Rufai made the statements on air and that when pressed further, in the course of the interview, the ex-governor said someone did the phone tapping and passed the information to him.

During cross-examination by El-Rufai’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN), Adeyanju said he did not hear El-Rufai specifically say he hacked Ribadu’s phone lines but that he heard him say, “We listened to the conversations of the NSA.”

When asked whether or not he knew the means through which the NSA makes calls and if he would be surprised to learn that DSS investigators did not ask the NSA which of his devices was allegedly compromised, the witness said those were not his business.

The prosecution tendered an official gazette without objection from the defence. Following this, the court admitted it in evidence.

Justice Joyce Abdulmalik has adjourned further hearing till today.

El-Rufai is facing a three-count charge.

* That you, Mallam Nasir El Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did admit during the interview that you and your cohorts unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.

* That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did state during the interview that you know and relate with certain individual, who unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, without reporting the said individual to relevant security agencies and thereby committed an offence, contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.

* That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, and other still at large, sometime in 2026, in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, with others still at large did use technical equipment or systems which compromised public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians by unlawfully intercepting the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, to which you admitted during an interview on February 13, 2026, on Arise TV station’s “Prime Time” programme in Abuja and thereby committed an offence, contrary to and punishable under Section 131(2) Nigerian Communications Act 2003.

Continue Reading

news

Major Legal Blow as Court Orders Deregistration of ADC, Accord, Three Other Parties

Published

on

The Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to deregister the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and four other political parties.

The other political parties the court directed the electoral body to deregister are the Action Peoples Party (APP), Action Alliance (AA), Accord Party (AP), and Zenith Labour Party (ZLP).

The court order followed a judgment delivered by Justice Peter Lifu.

The National Forum of Former Legislators had, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/2637/2026, prayed the court to determine whether INEC has a constitutional obligation to remove political parties that fail to meet the electoral performance thresholds set out in Section 225A of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), as reinforced by the Electoral Act 2022 and INEC’s regulations.

It was the position of the plaintiff that the five political parties listed as defendants in the matter had persistently failed to meet the constitutional benchmarks required to retain their registration.

The former legislators stressed that the requirements include winning at least 25 per cent of votes in a state during a presidential election or securing at least one elective seat at the national, state, or local government level.

They told the court that the ADC and the four other parties performed poorly in both the 2023 general elections and by-elections conducted by INEC, thereby failing to win seats across key tiers of government.

The litigants insisted that the continued existence of the ADC and the other defendants as recognised political parties is unlawful and undermines the integrity of the country’s electoral system.

Among other reliefs, the plaintiff urged the court to declare that INEC is duty-bound to deregister such parties.

It further urged the court to compel the commission to deregister the five political parties before preparations for the 2027 elections advance further.

Beyond declaratory reliefs, the plaintiff prayed the court to restrain the five affected parties from participating in general elections or engaging in political activities such as campaigns, rallies, and primaries.

It also sought a court injunction restraining INEC from recognising or dealing with the parties in any official capacity unless and until they strictly comply with constitutional provisions.

The judgment may affect the chances of candidates of the affected political parties, including former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, to contest the 2027 presidential poll.

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025 Newsthumb Magazine | All rights reserved