Prosecution presents investigating police officer after complainant testifies under cross-examination; court admits defendant’s statement and video evidence as trial continues.
By A1NEWS International
Abuja, Nigeria | Tuesday, July 7, 2026
The trial of a University of Abuja law student accused of allegedly raping a 100-level medical student continued before the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory on Monday, with the complainant undergoing extensive cross-examination by defence counsel as the prosecution proceeded to call its second witness.
The proceedings focused largely on testing the credibility of the complainant’s testimony, the circumstances that led to her meeting with the defendant, her conduct after the alleged incident, and the sequence of events surrounding the alleged sexual assault.
Following the conclusion of the complainant’s testimony, the prosecution called the Investigating Police Officer (IPO), who presented documentary and electronic evidence relating to the investigation.
The case, which has attracted considerable public attention because it involves students of the University of Abuja, remains before the court for determination. As with all criminal proceedings, the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Defence Intensifies Cross-Examination of Complainant
At the resumed hearing, defence counsel subjected the prosecution’s first witness (PW1), the complainant, to detailed cross-examination aimed at testing the consistency of her earlier testimony.
One of the principal issues raised by the defence concerned how the complainant came to be at the defendant’s residence.
Counsel suggested that she voluntarily visited the defendant.
The complainant rejected that characterisation.
According to her testimony, she did not independently decide to visit the defendant but was allegedly persuaded to do so after he informed her that they would meet someone who could assist her in accessing the Federal Government’s NELFUND student loan scheme.
She testified that the defendant had proposed meeting initially at an open location before allegedly taking her elsewhere.
The defence’s line of questioning appeared intended to challenge whether the meeting was entirely voluntary or whether the complainant had been induced by representations allegedly made by the defendant.
Complainant Explains NELFUND Conversation
During cross-examination, defence counsel also questioned the complainant regarding earlier communications between both parties.
The complainant explained that a day before the alleged incident, the defendant had given her ₦500 and assured her that he knew someone who could facilitate her application for assistance under the Federal Government’s NELFUND programme.
According to her testimony, she subsequently contacted the defendant through a chat message to thank him for the financial gesture and to remind him of his earlier promise regarding assistance with the student loan.
She denied the suggestion that she initiated the interaction for any purpose unrelated to the promised educational assistance.
Her explanation formed part of the prosecution’s broader narrative that she had relied on the defendant’s alleged representations when agreeing to meet him.
Questions Raised Over Events Following the Alleged Assault
The defence further questioned the complainant regarding her conduct after the alleged incident.
She confirmed that she did not personally report the matter either to the university’s security department or directly to her parents immediately after the alleged assault.
Instead, she testified that it was her roommate who reported the incident to the Student Union Government (SUG) president.
The defence highlighted these circumstances during cross-examination, while the complainant maintained her account of events.
Such questions are common in criminal trials involving allegations of sexual offences and are typically aimed at testing the credibility and consistency of witness testimony.
The court will ultimately determine the evidential weight to attach to those explanations after considering all the evidence presented by both parties.
Complainant Clarifies Earlier Testimony
Another issue explored during cross-examination concerned the complainant’s description of what allegedly occurred during the early hours of the morning.
Defence counsel suggested that she had previously testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her again at approximately 5:30 a.m.
The complainant disagreed with that characterisation.
She clarified that her testimony was that the defendant allegedly inserted his fingers into her private part while she repeatedly pushed him away.
The clarification formed part of the defence’s effort to examine the consistency of the complainant’s evidence and the precise nature of the allegations before the court.
Age of Complainant Confirmed
During questioning, the complainant informed the court that she is 20 years old.
Her age was confirmed as part of the defence’s cross-examination.
Although not disputed by either party, the information forms part of the official court record.
Investigating Police Officer Testifies
Following the conclusion of the complainant’s testimony, the prosecution called its second witness (PW2), ASP Monica John, the Investigating Police Officer attached to the Federal Capital Territory Criminal Investigation Department.
The officer testified regarding the investigation conducted by the police after the complaint was received.
As part of her evidence, the prosecution tendered:
- The defendant’s statement made during police investigation;
- A video recording relating to the defendant’s statement.
The exhibits were presented as part of the prosecution’s documentary and electronic evidence supporting its case.
The investigating officer was subsequently cross-examined by defence counsel.
The details of her testimony are expected to be further examined as the prosecution continues calling witnesses.
Legal Significance of the Proceedings
Monday’s hearing represented another procedural stage in the prosecution’s effort to establish its case.
Cross-examination remains one of the most important safeguards in Nigeria’s adversarial criminal justice system, allowing the defence to challenge the reliability, consistency and credibility of prosecution witnesses.
Similarly, the prosecution bears the legal burden of proving every element of the alleged offence beyond reasonable doubt.
The admission of statements and electronic evidence into the court record does not amount to proof of guilt. The trial court will ultimately determine the evidential weight of each exhibit after evaluating the testimony of all witnesses and the defence’s response.
Case Adjourned
At the conclusion of Monday’s proceedings, the presiding judge adjourned the matter until July 21, 2026, for the continuation of hearing.
The prosecution is expected to call additional witnesses as it seeks to establish its case, while the defence will continue exercising its right to challenge the evidence presented before the court.
The ongoing trial involving a University of Abuja law student and allegations made by a 100-level medical student entered another important phase as the complainant underwent detailed cross-examination and the prosecution presented its investigating officer.
The proceedings highlighted competing narratives regarding how the parties met, the complainant’s actions before and after the alleged incident, and the investigative steps taken by law enforcement authorities.
No findings have yet been made on the merits of the allegations. The defendant remains entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence, while the prosecution continues to bear the burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
As the trial resumes on July 21, 2026, the court’s eventual judgment will depend entirely on the credibility of the witnesses, the admissibility and weight of the evidence, and the applicable law.
Leave a Reply