Alleged Sexual Harassment: You’ve a case to answer, court tells Prof Ndifon

suspended Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Calabar, UNICAL, Prof. Cyril Ndifon

Alleged Sexual Harassment: You’ve a case to answer, court tells Prof Ndifon

ABUJA– The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Wednesday, held that the suspended Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Calabar, UNICAL, Prof. Cyril Ndifon, who was accused of sexually harrasing his students, has a case to answer.

The court, in a ruling that was delivered by Justice James Omotosho, ordered both the university don and his lawyer, Mr Sunny Anyanwu, who is on trial for allegedly attempting to pervert the course of justice in the matter, to prepare their defence to the allegations against them.The duo are answering to a four-count amended charge that the Independent Corrupt.

Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, ICPC, preferred against them.

They had after the prosecution closed its case with the evidence of four witnesses, filed a no-case-submission wherein they sought to be discharged and acquitted of the allegations.The defendants, through their team of lawyers led by Mr. Joe Agi, SAN, among other things, contended that the ICPC failed to by way of any credible evidence, establish a prima-facie case to warrant them to enter their defence to the charge.

According to the defendants, the totality of the testimony of all the witnesses, among whom included one of the alleged victims who is a female diploma student that was simply identified as ‘TKJ’, were not sufficient or such that any court could rely upon to make a conviction.

However, in his ruling on Wednesday, Justice Omotosho dismissed the application by the defendants for want of merit.

The court further waved aside their contention that it lacked the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case.

More so, the court held that it was satisfied that the ICPC was fully empowered by its establishment Act, to prosecute the matter.

It held that the prosecution was able to raise issues that would require further explanations from the defendants.