The case which was initially presided over by Justice Isaq Sani came up before a new Judge, Justice F.A Olubanjo following the transfer of the former from the Federal High Court, Akure. The accused couple, Prince Abiodun and Happiness Ogundeji were arrested by men of the Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS) and handed over to the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking In Persons (NAPTIP). The case has been in Court since February 2014 for prosecution over illegal detention of pregnant teenage girls whose babies, according to sources are often sold at birth. Following investigations and findings by NAPTIP, the accused persons are now facing 10-point count charge for unlawful custody of the victims against their wish and for illegally enticing them away as well as depriving them of their parents and guardians. The action is said to have contravened section 19, sub section C and E of the trafficking in persons (prohibition) Law Enforcement and Administration Act 2003 as amended in 2005. The case was adjourned in response to a prayer by the defendent’s Counsel, Bola Alabi for more time to study the amended charges as being new in the case. This came after an earlier directive to the prosecuting Counsel that the amended 10-count charge be read to the hearing of the defendants. Responding to the amended charge, counsel to the defendant requested if the defendant had been served. Consequent upon the confirmation by the prosecuting lawyer that one of the defendant’s counsel, Chuma Oguejiofor had been served through a law firm, Dele Kuboye & Co, Justice Olubanjo directed the Court Clerk to make copies of the charge and stood the case down to allow the defendants to be served in person. The Presiding Judge warned the defendant’s counsel against unnecessary technicalities as delay tactics. Justice Olubanjo said she would not want to deny the Counsel ample opportunity to defend their clients,but urged that the culture of speedy administration of Justice be applied. She therefore adjourned the case to July 7 for plea and applications on the case, while the defendant’s counsel were given seven days within which they should serve the prosecuting Counsel.]]>