By Sunmola Olowookere

The Ondo State High Court III, adjudicating on the case of missing child at Sotitobire Praising Chapel is set for judgement. This followed the adoption of written addresses counsel to the both parties yesterday.
The adoption signaled their counsel’s final arguments before the court. The court has also adjourned sina dine.
The prosecution led by the Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice, Adekola Olawoye, SAN while adopting it’s written address cited circumstantial evidence as the grounds on which he based his argument.
The AG raised questions as to the case such as who was the strange woman that allegedly took the baby away, according to the defence? Why would any of the teachers fail to describe someone who took away a child registered and kept under their care?
While responding to the reply of one of the defense counsel, Olusola Oke, he stated that the claim that a strange woman taking the baby away was a mere smokescreen to confuse the court.
He expressed doubt whether the baby could ever be found again as he said that the children teachers’s testimonies were inconstitent as to the identity of the woman who took the baby away.
In their testimonies during the trial, while some made allusions to a strange woman, others had claimed that the aunt, Esther Kolawole took the baby and that she accompanied the mother while she came to drop the baby.
The Attorney-General thereafter urged the court to hold that the prosecution had discharged the burden placed on it and convict the defendant’s accordingly.
While addressing the court, Olusola Oke representing the first, second and fourth defendants said he had a written address dated 4th of August and adopted same.
While making reference to some parts of the address, he impressed it upon the court that the founder, Alfa Babatunde was in the church auditorium all through the service and did not go out, let alone go to the children department.
He therefore argued that it was impossible to pin the first defendant to the crime as the prosecution witnesses even gave testimonies that he was in the church all through the service.
On the issue of the second and the fourth defendant, he said that the fact that the two women were at the children church meant that they were involved in the crime.
He maintained that at the earliest possible time, the statement and testimonies of the defendants had been constitent that two women brought the missing boy, Eninlaloluwa Gold Kolawole as against the claim of the prosecution.
He claimed that the statement of the father of the missing boy, Temitope Kolawole showed that they all got to church together along with the sister, Esther Kolawole whom they said during their testimony was sent to withdraw money from a point of sales device.
He expressed that the case ought to be probed further saying that the investigation carried out was shoddy and has no basis for conviction.
He argued that the DSS only stated during cross-examination that they went to the first defendant’s house although they admitted not finding anything incriminating there.
He reminded the court that all through the trial, allusions were made to a case of a missing child and not aiding and abetting kidnapping which was contained in the charge brought against them.
He submitted that the case of the Prosecution was disjointed, weak and urged the court to discharge and acquit his clients.
The counsel to the third defendant, Olumide Ogidan urged the court to discharge and acquit his client on the basis that the prosecution had not proved the charges against her.
Akinyemi Omoware, representing the 5th and 6th defendants maintained that four people came to the church instead of the three stated by the prosecution witnesses.
He also cited the issue of jurisdiction while saying that a case that was still being investigated by the Department of Security Services should not be brought to court and urged the court to also discharge and acquit his clients.
Counsel to the seventh defendant, Lekan Akinrinsola said that the exhibit tendered against his client was not demonstrated before the court and urged the discountenance it and free his client.
The trial judge, Olusegun Odusola adjourned the case for judgement at a date he promised to communicate to parties with at least five days notice.