An Abuja Federal High Court, on Friday, ordered the National Identity Management Commission to provide the Certified True Copy of David Ukpo’s biodata.
Last month, former deputy Senate president, Ike Ekweremadu and his wife, Beatrice were arrested and charged to court by the London Metropolitan Police for allegedly bringing a child (Ukpo) to the UK for organ harvesting.
UK authorities said the “child” had “been safeguarded”, while the police said their operatives “are working closely with partners on continued support”.
London police said Ukpo is 15, but his passport and Bank Verification Number show he is 21.
In a suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/984/2022 and filed on June 27 by counsel to the senator and his wife, Adegboyega Awomolo, before Justice Inyang Ekwo, of the Abuja Federal High Court in Abuja, the couple prayed the court for an order directing the NIMC to supply them with the CTC of Ukpo’s biodata.
The couple 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 Ekweremadus 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 CTC copy of the “mandate card and account opening package of Ukpo’s bank accounts”.
Awomolo, while arguing on 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.
The counsel 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.
During Friday’s court session, Justice Ekwo, 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 was granted.