The indecent assault trial of Labone Senior High School French teacher Godwin Adigbli has been adjourned to November 16 after the 45-year-old began giving evidence in his defence.
Adigbli is challenging the prosecution’s handling of blood-stained underwear belonging to the complainant, arguing that forensic testing is needed to establish the nature and significance of the stain.
The Domestic Violence and Victim Support Unit (DOVVSU) court had previously rejected applications for forensic examination of the exhibit and a medical assessment, following opposition from the prosecution.
His lawyer, Ernest Gbesemete, said the requests had been made in good faith to help determine the truth. He argued that Adigbli should not be denied access to potentially relevant evidence simply because he could not afford the examinations.
Mr Gbesemete told the court that his client had been on interdiction throughout the proceedings and was therefore unable to pay for the proposed tests. Referring to Article 19 of the 1992 Constitution, he said the accused’s financial difficulties should not prevent the court from considering evidence that could be material to the case.
The defence also questioned the colour of the alleged blood stain. It argued that an ordinary blood stain would have become brownish over time, while the mark on the underwear remained red.
Chief Inspector Gladys Aikins, who is prosecuting, accused the defence of trying to delay the case. She said no objection had been raised when the underwear was first tendered in evidence.
She told the court that the prosecution was willing to arrange a medical examination of Adigbli at the Police Hospital. She added that the Police Crime Laboratory could examine the stain, although it did not have the materials required for DNA testing.
Chief Inspector Aikins said the prosecution could not be expected to fund an independent practitioner chosen by the defence and urged the court to allow proceedings to continue.
Mr Gbesemete denied that the defence was deliberately delaying the trial, pointing out that the applications had been filed within a week of the prosecution closing its case. He said the state had a duty to protect both the complainant and the accused, who remains presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The defence asked for adequate time to prepare. However, the presiding judge said the burden had shifted to Adigbli after the prosecution closed its case, and that he would have to finance forensic evidence if he chose an independent facility.
The court upheld its earlier decision and said counsel could appeal. The judge also warned that Adigbli’s bail could be revoked if he failed to open his defence.
Adigbli entered the witness box, adopted his witness statement as his evidence-in-chief and began cross-examination. He said he had taught for 20 years, including six years teaching French at Labone Senior High School.
He confirmed the school was mixed and that the complainant was female, but said she was not his French student. He could not remember the name of the hostel where she lived.
The defence objected when he was asked who was responsible for the hostel, saying it was unfair to expect him to identify someone in a hostel whose name he did not know. Chief Inspector Aikins argued that his statement showed the complainant first came to his attention over improper school attire and that, as a teacher, he should know her hostel or house.
The judge dismissed the objection and directed Adigbli to answer. He said he was not a residential teacher and did not know the hostel.
He also rejected the suggestion that matters involving female students should be referred to female teachers, saying not every issue concerning a girl was reported to one.
Cross-examination will continue on November 16.
