COURT DISMISSES STANLEY OFFOR’S BID TO RECALL WITNESSES, REJECTS MOVE TO TENDER DISPUTED DOCUMENTS

Read Time:1 Minute, 58 Second

By Aishat Momoh. O.

A Lagos High Court on Wednesday rejected two applications filed by the defence team of Stanley Offor, dismissing attempts to recall prosecution witnesses and tender documents through them in his ongoing criminal trial.

Offor is facing charges bordering on forgery, conspiracy, and unlawful occupation of property. The prosecution alleges that he and others still at large forged the signature and receipts of the late Mrs. Comfort Eruchalu to illegally sublease her property to a third party. He is also accused of unlawfully occupying a property owned by Cool Comfort Africa Ltd., located behind Atiku Abubakar Hall 3 at the Trade Fair Complex, Lagos, despite directives to vacate.

At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel, Dr. Emmanuel Jackson, urged the court to dismiss the defence’s applications, arguing that they lacked legal merit. He insisted that the defence failed to satisfy the conditions required to recall witnesses who had already testified. Relying on established case law, Jackson maintained that a change of counsel does not justify reopening cross-examination.

He also objected to the defence’s attempt to tender two documents through the prosecution witnesses, stressing that the witnesses were not the makers of the documents and therefore could not lay the proper foundation for their admissibility.

“The law is clear: documents must be tendered through their makers, except in specific, narrowly defined situations. This application does not meet any such exception,” Jackson submitted.

Defence counsel, Chinedu Nwosu, argued that as newly retained counsel, he was not part of the earlier cross-examination conducted by his predecessor and needed the witnesses recalled to ensure a fair defence. He also maintained that the documents were crucial to his client’s case.

However, counsel for the nominal complainant, Barrister Ojo Olufemi, aligned with the prosecution and urged the court to dismiss both applications.

In his ruling, Justice Ismail Ijelu held that the defence failed to establish exceptional circumstances that would warrant recalling witnesses. He affirmed that a change of counsel is not a valid legal ground to reopen cross-examination.

The judge also upheld the prosecution’s objection to the disputed documents, ruling that they could not be admitted through witnesses who were not their makers, as doing so would breach settled evidentiary principles.

Justice Ijelu consequently dismissed the two applications and adjourned the case to February 3, 2026, for continuation of trial.