Dissecting The Roles Of Senator Ike Ekweremadu And Wife In The Attempted Organ Harvesting Of Ukpo Nwamini David In The United Kingdom (A legal excurses)

-By Harry Fanon (B.Phil, MA Phil, LLB, and B.L)-

The Ekweremadus and in part the Magistrate can elect that the case be tried in the Crown Court for a number of reasons like sentencing, complex case and if an expert witness is required.

Randomly selected ordinary people (the jury) may determine the fate of the Ekweremadus. If this is the case, the Crown Court will only direct the jury on matters of law.

On Tuesday 21 June 2022 what appears to be a family medical concern suddenly became global news. Senator Ike Ekweremadu and wife Beatrice Nwanneka Ekweremadu were arrested at Heathrow airport London. The two were jointly and severally charged at Uxbridge Magistrate Court London UK for conspiracy to arrange and/or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to exploiting; an offense under the United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, section 2 (1) and section 5 (1). From the facts of the case, the Ekweremadus could be tried either in the Magistrate Court or at the Crown Court. This is dependent on how the Ekweremadus decides to plead. Again the matter could be entertained at Crown court if the Magistrate forms the opinion that his sentencing powers are insufficient for the case.

If the Ekweremadus are found guilty of human trafficking under the Modern Slavery Act on indictment, they are liable to imprisonment for life; if on summary conviction they face imprisonment for not more than 12 months or a fine or both. In the UK, summary offenses are tried by the judge alone. For an offense to be a summary offense, the statute that creates the offense must clearly say that it can be dealt with summarily. If it does not, then the offense is an indictable offense. Indictable offenses require a trial by a judge and jury. If a person is charged with an indictable offense and the person chooses to plead ‘not guilty’, the defendant is guaranteed the right to a trial by jury.

Facts: Senator Ike Ekweremadu is a known politician in Nigeria. For 7 years he was Senate’s Deputy Speaker. Ike Ekweremadu’s daughter, Sonia required a Kidney transplant. Mr. and Mrs. Ekweremadu shopped around for organ donors. In a letter dated 26th December 2021 Ike Ekweremadu, Esq. wrote to British High Commission Abuja to the effect of medical visa and sponsoring of one Mr. Ukpo Nwamini David for kidney.

2.
donation to Ms Sonia. The letter read in part: “David and Sonia will be at the Royal Free
Hospital London. I will be providing the necessary funding. I have enclosed a statement of my bank account.” On the authority of the letter, the British embassy issued visa to Ukpo Nwamini David. Had the British embassy reasonably suspected human trafficking, David’s visa would have been refused. It is then clear why the British police jointly and severally charged the Ekweremadus for conspiracy to arrange/facilitate the travel of another person with a view to exploitation, namely organ harvesting.

It is estimated that 7,000 people are on the UK Transplant Waiting list. According to the UK’s Modern Slavery Act, 2015 any person over 18 years in England is deemed a potential organ donor unless he or she opts out from the National Health Service Organ Donor Register or he or she belongs to the excluded group. Those under the age of 18 and people who lack the mental capacity to understand the law in taking appropriate actions are deemed to be excluded from organ donation. Unless proved otherwise, the prosecution could argue successfully that David lacks the mental capacity to understand the medical complexities of kidney donation if he was not provided with an alternative medicine expert and independent legal adviser to inform his decision. Again visitors and those not living in the UK voluntarily are exempted from organ donation. With the exemptions above, the Ekweremadus are in for a long legal journey in the UK.

According to United Kingdom’s Modern Slavery Act (MSA), 2015, section 2 subsection (1), the defendant commits human trafficking if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person with a view to exploiting the victim. The issue for determination for the court is whether the Ekweremadus facilitated Mr. David’s travel to the UK. Senator Ike Ekweremadu in his letter to the British Visa section clearly stated: “I will be providing the necessary funding. I have enclosed a statement of my bank account.” It should not be forgotten that section 2 (7) of MSA stressed that a person who is not a UK national commits an offense if any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom. Legally, the Ekweremadus as charged went beyond mere preparation as to ascribe attempt and intention to commit the offense of trafficking and/or harvesting David’s kidney.

3.  We should not forget in a hurry that Section 2 (2) of the MSA makes it irrelevant whether David is a minor or not or whether David gave consent or not to the Ekweremadus. Certainly, consent is necessarily not relevant in this case. Even if the contrary is the case, David can at any time withdraw his consent. For section 2 (2) MSA, it is inconsequential whether David is a minor or an adult. It is not however impossible that David consented to travel to the UK for ease of life but did not consent for his vital organ to be harvested. Should this be the case, it is envisaged that the Ekweremadus possibly misrepresented material facts to David. Very urgently, the court will consider if the Ekweremadus attempted to “exploit” David within the context of the MSA. In determining this exploitative tranche of the law, relevant questions will need to be answered:

1. How did the Ekweremadus come about interacting with David for the purposes of harvesting his kidney?
2. What was David’s true age; 15 or 21 years old?
3. How was David’s Nigerian passport (no B00569974 issued 04/11/2021) procured?
4. Did the Ekweremadus have hands in facilitating and procuring David’s Nigerian passport?
5. Was Ukpo Nwamini David informed of the risk associated to kidney donation?
6. Was the purpose of the UK visit misrepresented to David?
7. Did David grant an informed consent?
8. Did David have an independent medical adviser?
9. What was the consideration for David to donate his kidney to Sonia Ekweremadu?
10. Prior to travelling to the UK with David, had the Ekweremadus obtained clearance certificate from Nigeria National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Person (NAPTIP) would it have excluded them from the alleged offence? The answer is a resounding no. Ex-DG for NAPTIP, Julie Okah-Doli advised that the Ekweremadus

4. Should have obtained NAPTIP clearance before traveling to the UK. NAPTIP clearance is akin to a worthless piece of paper that has no force of the law in the UK which is not binding or domesticated in UK’s jurisprudence.

The above questions are legal huddles for the Ekweremadus and their defense Counsels. It appears there is an ontological defect in the manner in which Mr. Ukpo’s Nigerian passport was procured. Ukpo Nwamini David’s age on his Nigerian passport states that he was born on 12th October 2000; that means he is 21 years old. Ukpo informed the hospital and British police that he is 15 years old. This later age declaration raises issues of safeguarding and trafficking of minors which triggered the arrest of Mrs. Beatrice Nwanneka Ekweremadu and Ike Ekweremadu (Esq.). I would also imagine that the Magistrate will consider whether the Ekweremadus had the intention (that is mens rea) to harvest David’s kidney as stipulated in Section 4 of MSA and as charged under section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act (MSA).

In the alternative, since David is not genetically related to the Ekweremadus, the Crown Prosecution can also decide to charge them under Human Organ Transplant Act 1989. The Act prohibits commercial dealings in human organs intended for transplanting; to restrict the transplanting of such organs between persons who have no sanguine relationship. In Section 1 subsection 1 (A, B and C ) a person is guilty of an offense if in Great Britain he or she makes or receives any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, an organ that has been or is to be removed from a dead or living person and is intended to be transplanted into another person whether in Great Britain or elsewhere; (b)seeks to find a person willing to supply for payment and (c) initiates or negotiates any arrangement involving the making of any payment for the supply of, or for an offer to supply, such an organ.

However that may be, the burden of proof rests with the UK government. The British government is aware of the consequences of huge claims/damages against them. Irrespective of the opinion expressed in this article, the commencement of the hearing on the 7th July 2022 unveiled both the legal metaphysic and the legal epistemology portent to this case present at hand. I will suggest that the Ekweremadus should consider that the matter be concluded at the Magistrate Court rather than at the Crown Court. A custodial sentence at the Magistrate does not exceed 12 months. The Crown
Court and jury service attract a higher custodial sentences.

Harry Fanon is a philosopher and a UK-trained jurisprudence attorney writing from his Ahiazu
Cave (hfanon@yahoo.com).