he was accused of sexually harassing.
The professor is currently standing trial on amended four counts of alleged sexual harassment and gratification preferred against him by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.
Also joined in the matter is his lawyer, Sunny Anyanwu, who was alleged to have harassed TKJ and asked her to shun the ICPC’s invitation.
TKJ who is the ICPC’s star witness had during her testimony accused the professor of demanding her virginity and coerced her into performing oral sex for admission into the LLB program at the institution.
However, in a copy of the no-case submission filed by the Prof’s lawyer, Joe Agi (SAN) sighted by our correspondent on Thursday, Ndifon urged the court to discharge and acquit him, adding that the series of chats suggested a consensual relationship between them.
In the chats, the professor noted that they conveyed their love, affection, and concern for each other’s safety.
He said, “What are the elements of the offence(a) causing fear (b) threat (c) fear for safety? None of the above elements were contained in count 1. Nor was there any evidence adduced to show fear, safety, or blackmail from TKJ or Professor Ndifon, particularly by Exhibit “H” The chats show clearly that both 1 Defendant and TKJ have a consensual relationship where they expressed their love, affection, and worries for each other safety particularly that of the 1 Defendant. ”
He also claimed that evidence before the court shows that text messages between him and TKJ were that of emotional feelings between two lovers and did not in any way put either of the party in fear.
Ndifon also said the ICPC violated his fundamental human rights by seizing his phones without a court order.
The suspended dean said, “The commission who at this time was desperate to create, search for any conceivable crime seized the telephone of the 1st Defendant who was under their custody and without obtaining an order of the court as required by Section 45 of the Cyber Crime Act in breach of his fundamental right as guaranteed by Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution as amended broke into his phone and started going through his phone in search for an offense and without respect to his right to privacy.
“Then on seeing nude and pornographic pictures in the 1st Defendant’s phone jumped at the Cybercrime Act to investigate the so-called offence of cyberstalking. This is not only exposing them as an ungovernable monster but like a knight—errant that goes about looking for skirmishes and battles all over the Mace. My Lord if this is allowed to stand, then we are all in trouble. This cannot be the intention of the lawmakers or the law.”
Ndifon also urged the court to decline jurisdiction on the case because, under cross-examination, Lucy Chima, a prosecution witness one asserted that they received several oral and written complaints but never mentioned TKJ as one of such complainants and that TKJ was not even listed as a witness in the originating charge but “surfaced after the amended charge was filed”.
He also contended that in the instant case, counts 1 and 2 which deal with sending and receiving nude videos and count 3 of the original charge, are not within the jurisdiction of the court as Section 26(2) and 61(3) of the Corrupt Practice and Other Related Offences Act, 2020 prevent the court from entertaining any of the offences brought.
“Now, let me turn to Count 4 in the original charge which is from the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act, 2015. From the Charge, proof of evidence before this Honourable Court, it is submitted that the case was not initiated by due process of law thereby depriving your lordship of jurisdiction,” he added
The adoption of written addresses on the no-case submission has been fixed for February 27, 2024.
