BISHOP FEYI DANIELS: DEFENCE COUNSEL'S ABSENCE STALLS TRIAL

Read Time:3 Minute, 21 Second

Sefiu Ajape

The ongoing trial of Bishop Feyiropo Daniels, the founder of “I Reign Christian Ministry,” which is located in Lekki area of Lagos State, has suffered another setback following the absence of the Defendant counsel.

Justice Ramon Oshodi of the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court in Ikeja has however, adjourned the matter till the new year.

When the matter was called on Wednesday, the prosecuting counsel, told the court that they had received a letter from the defence counsel dated 13th of December, 2023, requesting for an adjournment.

Justice Oshodi however, adjourned the sitting that was earlier stated to take place today till January 11, 2024, due to the absence of defense counsel.

Daniels is standing trial at the Sexual Offences and Domestic Violence Court in Ikeja, on Sexual assault.

During the last trial, it is to be recalled that Bishop Daniels, the defendant, took the stand in the witness box to defend himself. He testified that three out of the four women who had accused him of sexual assault had conspired to turn against him.

Subsequently, a cross-examination was conducted, led by the prosecution’s counsel, Babajide Boye. The prosecution aimed to establish that Bishop Daniels had a ‘personal relationship’ with the four women, suggesting that he had counseled one of them, provided financial assistance to another, and had affiliations with the others.

The prosecutor went on to allege that Bishop Daniels had counseled one of the women, provided N100,000 to another for medical treatment, contributed to the school fees of the third, and maintained a close relationship with the fourth as a leader in the campus fellowship affiliated with his ministry in Akungba-Akobo, Ondo State.

In response to the claims, Bishop Daniels strongly denied providing financial assistance for medical treatment, stating, “I believe all three ladies turned against me, but not [name withheld], because she later apologized to me.”

When asked why all the accusations from the women were of a sexual nature, Bishop Daniels responded that he was unaware.

In addition, the prosecution counsel accused the defendant, who is a pastor, of being a manipulator and using his influence to take advantage of those seeking counseling. The prosecutor said, “You are a man of God. Are you not? A powerful man of God. You get trained to counsel, and you use wisdom and the leading of the spirit to manipulate.”

Bishop Daniels, responding, strongly refuted the allegation, stating, “I am not a powerful man; I am a pastor. I do not use power to counsel people; I am not a manipulator.”

The prosecutor went further to question the defendant, specifically about an incident at his Akungba fellowship center. One of the alleged victims reportedly reacted negatively upon seeing Bishop Daniels. He responded, “No. She was disgruntled because I couldn’t help her financially.”

The exchange continued with the prosecutor challenging the defendant’s responsibility toward the woman, to which he answered that he was not her father, and she was not his responsibility.

Furthermore, the defendant refuted allegations of tampering with WhatsApp messages between him and one of the alleged victims.

As the cross-examination progressed, the prosecution sought to submit four statements, purportedly written by the defendant during his time in police custody the previous year. The prosecutor aimed to use these statements to challenge Bishop Daniels’ testimony.

In spite of that, the defense counsel, Adebayo Adegbite, objected to the admissibility of the statements as evidence. He argued that the statements were not made voluntarily and that the Bishop had signed them under duress.

Justice Oshodi ultimately ruled in favor of admitting the documents, citing the Administration of Criminal Justice Law of Lagos State (2021). He indicated that the presence of a video testimony was not mandatory, and he would later assess the evidential value of the documents. Consequently, the defense’s objection was overruled.

The court then adjourned the matter to December 20, 2023, to allow for the adoption of the final written addresses by the parties involved.