A federal high court in Abuja has ordered the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) to provide the certified true copy (CTC) of David Ukpo’s biodata.
In June, the London Metropolitan Police arrested and charged Ike Ekweremadu, former deputy senate president, and his wife to court for allegedly bringing a child (Ukpo) to the UK for organ harvesting.
The UK authorities said the “child” had “been safeguarded”, while the police said their operatives “are working closely with partners on continued support”.
Although the London police said Ukpo is 15, his passport and bank verification number (BVN) show he is 21.
In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2022 and filed on June 27 by Adegboyega Awomolo, counsel to the senator and his wife, before Inyang Ekwo, justice of a federal high court in Abuja, the Ekweremadus prayed the court for an order directing the NIMC to supply them with the certified true copy (CTC) of Ukpo’s biodata.
They sought an order directing the NIS comptroller-general to supply the applicants with Ukpo’s documents and application form presented for the issuance of his passport.
The plaintiffs also sought an order directing Stanbic IBTC and United Bank for Africa and Nigeria Inter-Bank settlement system PLC to supply the applicants with the certified true copy of the “mandate card and account opening package of Ukpo’s bank accounts”.
Awomolo, who gave 20 grounds why the prayers should be granted, said Ukpo offered to donate one of his kidneys to the daughter of the applicants if his kidney was compatible with hers.
He said Ukpo informed the applicants that he was 21 years old, after which Ekweremadu supported his visa application to the UK with a letter to the British high commission in Nigeria, explaining the purpose of the visit.
“After conducting various medical tests, the Royal Free Hospital in London decided that the said David Nwamini Ukpo was not a suitable donor because his kidney is not compatible with that of Sonia Ekweremadu,” he said.
At the court session on Friday, Inyang Ekwo, the judge, held that evidence showed that the respondents have been served with the applicants’ motion and since they did not dispute the facts of the motion, the application is granted.
Source: Top Stories
