By Sandra Umeh/Lagos
A Federal High Court in Lagos, on Wednesday, adjourned until 3 Feb. 2021, continuation of the trial of self-styled body contour plastic surgeon, Anuoluwapo Adepoju.
Doctor Anu, suspended last month by the Medical Council, is standing trial over alleged evasion from investigation into a failed plastic surgery.
The defendant is charged by the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC), alongside her Clinic, MedContour Services Ltd.
The defendants are standing trial on a five count charge bordering on a refusal to honour an invitation for investigation as well as production of investigation document.
Adepoju was re-arraigned on July 17, alongside her Medical outfit, before Justice Mohammed Liman.
She had pleaded not guilty to the charge and was granted bail on personal recognisance.
At the last adjourned date, a prosecution witness, Mrs Suzzy Onwuka, concluded her evidence with a narration on how the FCCPC failed in its attempts to secure the presence of the defendant for investigation over the allegations.
The prosecution had closed its case after the testimony of the witness. and the court adjourned the case for the defence to open its case on Dec. 2.
When the case was called, the prosecutor, Mr Abimbola Ojenike informed the court of a no case submission filed by the defence.
He, however, sought for an adjournment to enable the prosecution respond.
The defence counsel, Mrs Maria Jones told the court that the defendant had informed her about some of the drugs in her clinic expiring soon and, therefore, prayed the court to allow the drugs to be dispensed, instead of allowing them to expire.
Following the request by the defence counsel, the court urged the prosecution and its team to carry out an investigation of the clinic to determine the drugs that were near expiration.
The court adjourned the case till Feb. 3, 2021 for hearing of arguments on the no case submission of the defence.
In the five count charge brought against the defendants, the prosecution alleged that without sufficient cause, the first defendant failed to appear before the FCCPC in compliance with the commission’s summons dated April 15.
The prosecution also alleged that without sufficient cause, the first defendant refused and failed to produce documents she was required to produce in compliance with the commission’s notice of investigation dated April 14.
The defendant was alleged to have prevented and obstructed the commission from carrying out its investigation into the issue, in contravention of the provisions of sections 11(1)(a), 33(1)(a), 110, 113(1)(a) and 159(4) of the FCCPC Act, 2018.