A Lagos High Court in Ikeja has dismissed a fresh application by the defence team of Stanley Offor seeking to recall prosecution witnesses and tender new documents through them, describing the request as lacking merit and unsupported by law.
Offor is standing trial on multiple charges, including forgery, conspiracy, and unlawful occupation of property.
Prosecutors allege that he and accomplices 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.
At the resumed hearing, prosecuting counsel Dr. Emmanuel Jackson urged the court to dismiss the defence application in full, arguing that the defence had failed to satisfy any legal condition required to reopen the testimony of witnesses already examined.
Citing judicial authorities, Jackson stressed that a change of counsel is not a valid ground for recalling witnesses or restarting cross-examination.
Jackson also opposed the defence’s move to tender two documents through prosecution witnesses, insisting that the witnesses were not the makers of the documents and therefore could not lay the required foundation for their admissibility.
Read Also: FCMB, Three Others to Answer to Charges of Conspiracy, Forgery, and Fraud
“The law is clear: documents must be tendered through their makers, except in clearly defined exceptions, and this application does not fall within any,” he submitted.
Defence counsel Chinedu Nwosu urged the court to grant the application, arguing that as newly retained counsel, he was not involved in the earlier cross-examination.
He maintained that recalling the witnesses and tendering the documents were necessary to ensure a fair defence.
Counsel for the nominal complainant, Barrister Ojo Olufemi, aligned with the prosecution and urged the court to refuse the applications.
Delivering a considered ruling, Justice Ismail Ijelu held that the defence had not shown any exceptional circumstance to warrant the recall of witnesses.
The judge affirmed that a change of counsel does not constitute a legitimate basis for reopening cross-examination.
He further upheld the prosecution’s objection to the documents, ruling that they could not be admitted through witnesses who were not their makers, as doing so would violate established evidentiary rules.
The court consequently dismissed both applications and adjourned the matter to February 3, 2026, for continuation of trial.
