A Federal High Court in Lagos yesterday adjourned proceedings until October 24 for adoption of written addresses in the trial of a surgeon Dr. Anuoluwapo Adepoju, who is charged with alleged evasion from investigation into a failed plastic surgery by the Federal Competition and Consumers Protection Commission (FCCPC).
The case, which was scheduled for adoption of addresses yesterday, could not go on.
Adepoju is standing trial alongside her clinic, the MedContour Services Limited, on a five-count charge bordering on refusal to honour an invitation for investigation into a post-body surgery complications, as well as production of investigation documents.
She was re-arraigned on July 17, 2020, alongside her medical outfit before Justice Mohammed Liman where she pleaded not guilty to the charges and was granted bail on self recognisance.
Trial has since commenced in the suit and the FCCPC had also since closed its case.
Her defence counsel filed a no case submission on grounds that no case had been established against her by prosecution to warrant her entering a defence.
Meanwhile, Justice Liman had ruled against the no case submission by the defendant on April 7, 2022 because the evidences before the court satisfied the elements of the criminal charges pending against the defendant.
The court had then adjourned the case for the defence to open its case.
The case, however, has suffered several adjournments for various reasons. On May 5, 2023, the defence opened its case and called the first defendant as sole witness.
The defendant was led in evidence and also cross examined after which the court adjourned the case until June 21, for adoption of written addresses.
On June 21, the court did not sit and the case was then adjourned until July 17 (yesterday) when the case was further adjourned till October 24.
In the five-count charge brought against the defendants, the prosecution alleged that the first defendant failed to appear before the FCCPC in relation to investigation into a reported failed plastic surgery in compliance with the commission’s summons dated April 15, 2020.
The prosecution also alleged that without sufficient cause, the first defendant also refused and failed to produce documents which she was required to produce in compliance with the commission’s notice of investigation dated April 14, 2020.
The defendant was alleged to have prevented and obstructed the commission from carrying out its investigation into the said issue.
The offences contravened the provision of Sections 11(1)(a), 33(1)(a), 110, 113(1)(a) and 159(4) of the FCCPC Act, 2018.