An Ikeja Special Offences Court on Wednesday refused the bail application pending appeal filed by the convicted Nollywoord actor, James Olarewaju, alias, Baba Ijesha.
Justice Oluwatoyin Taiwo rejected the bail application of the embattled actor on grounds that he did not meet exceptional circumstances and criteria to warrant the bail.
“The applicant must show special and exceptional circumstances because the term given to him is five years which is to run concurrently.
“There is no evidence that the appeal has been entered and there is no indication before this court that the court will not treat the case expeditiously.
“It is in the view of this court that the applicant has failed to show special circumstances to warrant him bail because he is facing a serious crime.
“In view of this case, I am inclined to refuse the bail application of the applicants pending appea,” Taiwo held.
NAN reports that the embattled actor is seeking a bail for an appeal for the five years conviction of sexually assaulting a 14-year- old girl.
Baba Ijesha’s counsel, Mr Gabriel Olabiran, had on Aug.10 informed the court of a notice for bail pending appeal has been submitted in pursuant to Section 6 (6) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 51 of the High Court law of Lagos State, administration of criminal justice law.
Olabiran argued that the application admitted the applicant to bail, either unconditionally or upon reasonable conditions.
He said the application was brought before the court due to difficulty in getting a date at the Court of Appeal.
The state prosecutor, Mr Yusuf Sule, however, in a counter affidavits dated Aug.18, argued that the defence failed in its address to establish the special circumstances which might grant the convict bail.
“My lord, the defence has failed woefully in addressing the special circumstances which can be used to grant the convict bail.
NAN also reports that the court had on July 14 sentenced the embattled actor to five-years imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.
The court held that the prosecution had successfully proven the charge of sexual assault of a minor and indecent treatment of a minor against the convict.
The judge, however, discharged and acquitted him of count one and six which were sexual assault by penetration (which took place in 2014) and attempted sexual assault by penetration, which took place in 2021).
