Sophia Momodu, mother of David Adeleke’s daughter, has told a Lagos State High Court sitting in Sabo, Yaba to not grant the child’s custody to the musician.
Sophia told court that the musician used her condition of making herself available for his sexual pleasures, as a precondition to visit their daughter or show some fatherly love to her.
Momodu told Justice A.J Bashua on Friday that the applicant was not fit to be granted custody of their daughter because he is always not available and, aside, he does not possess the ability to dutifully care for her.
She disclosed this in a counter-affidavit she filed in opposition to Davido’s suit seeking custody of the child
Momodu said contrary to Davido’s claim that he had consistently fulfilled his financial obligations toward his daughter, the child was almost sent away from school because Davido refused to pay her school fees.
READ ALSO:I refused to be Davido’s sex slave – Sophia Momodu
She said, “Davido never showed true commitment or love toward our daughter. He always used the condition of making myself available for his sexual pleasures, as a precondition to visit our daughter or show some fatherly love to her.
“The applicant apart from his cravings for sex only comes around to spend time with our daughter when he wants to use our daughter for his media stunts or promotions.
“Whenever I refused his sexual advances, the applicant has always been known to go away and stop communicating with our daughter. He stopped making payment for school fees and/or payment of maintenance for our daughter. ”
Momodu further stated that Davido once threw her and their daughter out of his home in Atlanta, US during a summer holiday in 2017 and they ended up squatting with a friend.
“I never denied Davido access to his daughter, he chose to be an absentee father. I had been responsible for my accommodation. He had always had access to our daughter until he chose to abuse it by visiting at odd hours to demand sex.
“When I noticed that his (Davido) intention of coming late at night to my house was not to visit our daughter, but to seek sexual favours, even after our relationship had ended, I told him to desist from such late-night visits, as our daughter who needed to be in school in the morning would have slept at the time of his late-night visits.
“It was when I refused the applicant’s ingress into my house at ungodly hours of the night on the pretext of visiting our daughter that he decided to stop visiting or calling our daughter and this has been the pattern with the applicant all through his relationship with our daughter.
“Whenever I refused to be his sex slave, he would stop caring for his daughter and abandon her and use the fact of our daughter’s sadness due to his absence to force me to accede to his unwholesome demands.
“I have never stopped the applicant or his family members from coming to visit his daughter, calling or reconnecting with our daughter.” Sophia Momodu said
READ ALSO:Sophia Momodu replies Davido over Imade’s custody suit
Also, contrary to Davido’s claim, Momodu said he has not been faithful in paying their daughter’s school fees, having defaulted in 2021 and 2022 with the school writing to her in January 2023, over unpaid tuition.
“The school wrote via email notifying me that our daughter will not be allowed entry into the school except that all outstanding fees from 2021 to 2023 were paid off.”
The respondent further told the court that it was Davido’s father that intervened and paid the school fees, contrary to Davido’s claim.
“I’m the one paying the rent of my apartment where I live with our daughter, Davido did not buy any house for us. I have been providing the best care for our daughter, in spite of her father’s negligence and I will continue to do so, as a loving mother.”
The respondent was represented by a legal team led by Anthony Idigbe (SAN) who drew court attention to the publication of a hearing notice in a national newspaper by Davido’s legal team, in which the name of his daughter was mentioned four times.
The judge agreed with Idigbe that while the press were free to report, the child’s name ought not to be mentioned at all.
The judge therefore asked members of the press, litigants and all other lawyers not involved in the case, to leave the courtroom during the proceeding.
Earlier, Idigbe, with the court’s permission, drew the attention of members of the press to Section 143 of the Child’s Right Law of Lagos State 2015.
The law provides that in a case involving a minor: “No person must be allowed to attend court, other than the members and officers of the court and the parties to the case.
It also provides that their solicitors and counsel, parents and guardians of the child and other persons directly concerned in the case were free to be allowed in.”
However, Idigbe also referred the court to Section 144 of the Law, which prohibits the publication of a child’s name.
“No person must publish the name, address, school, photograph, or anything likely to lead to the identification of a child in a matter before the court, except as required by the provisions of this law.”
The senior lawyer therefore referred to Section 145 of the Child Rights Law, which stated: “The proceedings in the court must be conducive to the best interest of the child and must be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, allowing the child to express himself and participate in the proceedings.”
Sophia Momodu, in the counter-affidavit, also faulted the publication of the suit in a national newspaper.
“The applicant (Davido) in publishing this suit in a national newspaper has exposed our daughter to great danger.
“I would have to implement extra security measures to ensure the continued safety of our daughter in school,” she stated.
However, at the end of the proceedings, it was gathered that the court referred the case for possible settlement by the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) section of the court for settlement.
The post Sofia tells court not to grant custody of child to Davido appeared first on Guardian Nigeria News.
