The Lagos State High Court at Tafawa Balewa Square has adjourned the judgment in the case against Andrew Ominikoron, a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) driver accused of the rape and murder of 22-year-old fashion designer Oluwabamise Ayanwola. Justice Sherifat Sonaike scheduled the verdict for May 2, 2025, after both the prosecution and the defence presented their final written arguments. The case, which has gripped public attention, revolves around the tragic death of Ayanwola in February 2022, allegedly at the hands of Ominikoron while she was commuting on a BRT bus. The prosecution, led by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Dr. Babajide Martins, has built its case around circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, while the defense, represented by Abayomi Omotubora, contends that the evidence is insufficient to convict Ominikoron.
The defense’s core argument rests on the assertion that the prosecution failed to present direct evidence linking Ominikoron to Ayanwola’s death. Omotubora emphasized the lack of eyewitness testimony directly implicating his client in the murder. He also challenged the admissibility of a voice note purportedly sent by the deceased to a friend shortly before her disappearance, characterizing it as hearsay evidence since the friend did not testify in court. Furthermore, Omotubora questioned the prosecution’s reliance on the “last-seen” doctrine, arguing that mere suspicion of Ominikoron being the last person seen with Ayanwola does not equate to guilt. He maintained that stronger circumstantial evidence was required for a conviction. Regarding the testimony of a witness who alleged a prior rape by Ominikoron, the defense argued the need for corroborative evidence, emphasizing the potential for prejudice in such testimony.
The prosecution, however, argued that the accumulated evidence paints a clear picture of Ominikoron’s guilt. Dr. Martins pointed to testimonies from key witnesses and stressed that corroboration is not a legal requirement in rape cases under Nigerian law. He underscored the significance of Ominikoron being the last person seen with Ayanwola and his subsequent flight to Ososa, Sagamu, in Ogun State, instead of reporting to the police after her disappearance. This behavior, Martins argued, strongly indicates guilt. The prosecution further emphasized Ominikoron’s eventual apprehension by the Department of State Services (DSS) in 2022, suggesting an attempt to evade justice.
Addressing the contested admissibility of the deceased’s voice note, Dr. Martins invoked Section 34 of the Nigerian Evidence Act, which permits the court to assess and assign probative value to dying declarations. He argued that the voice note, purportedly detailing Ayanwola’s growing fear and suspicion while on the bus with Ominikoron, holds significant weight in understanding the circumstances leading to her death. This piece of evidence, the prosecution contended, forms a crucial part of the puzzle, alongside other circumstantial evidence, establishing a strong case against the defendant.
Ominikoron faces a four-count charge encompassing conspiracy, rape, and murder, brought forth by the Lagos State Government. He was arraigned in March 2022 following Ayanwola’s death on February 26, 2022, allegedly along the Lekki-Ajah Expressway. The prosecution alleges that Ominikoron acted in concert with others, currently at large, to commit the crimes. The charges detail that Ominikoron allegedly had unlawful carnal knowledge of Ayanwola and subsequently killed her around 7 p.m. between the Lekki-Ajah Expressway and Carter Bridge. The alleged offences contravene Sections 411, 223, 260, and 165 of the Criminal Law of Lagos State, 2015. Ominikoron has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The case now rests on the evaluation of the evidence presented. Justice Sonaike is tasked with determining whether the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence and witness testimonies, combined with the disputed voice note, are sufficiently compelling to establish Ominikoron’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Alternatively, the judge must decide if the defence’s arguments regarding the lack of direct evidence and the challenge to the admissibility of key evidence hold enough merit to acquit the defendant. The long wait for the judgment underscores the gravity of the case and the court’s meticulous approach in considering all aspects of the evidence and legal arguments presented. The verdict, expected in May 2025, will undoubtedly have significant implications for all involved and will be closely watched by the public, which has followed this tragic case with intense interest.
