Advertisement

Davido: Sophia Momodu tells the court that he came just to have sex

Posted by

Davido’s daughter’s mother, Sophia Momodu, has instructed a Lagos State High Court in Sabo, Yaba, not to give the artist custody of the kid.

Momodu informed the court on Friday that the applicant was unfit to have custody of their daughter because he is unable of providing her with the necessary care and is constantly unavailable.

This was said in a counter-affidavit she submitted in response to Davido’s custody action.

She said that even over the course of their relationship, Davido never truly committed himself to or exhibited love for his kid.

He constantly required me to make myself accessible for his sex pleasures before he would see our kid or otherwise show her some fatherly affection.

“The applicant only shows up to spend time with our daughter when he wants to utilize her for his publicity stunts or marketing, aside from his sex needs.

“Whenever I reject his sexual advances, the applicant has always been known to go away and stop communicating with our daughter, to stop making payments for school fees and/or maintenance for our daughter,” the woman said.

During a summer vacation in 2017, the respondent claimed that Davido had thrown her and their daughter out of his Atlanta, US, house, forcing them to move in with a friend.

Momodu said that Davido made the decision to be “an absentee father” and that she had never restricted his access to his daughter.

She continued by saying that she had paid for her lodging and that their daughter had always been under their custody—until he decided to abuse it by coming by at strange times and demanding sex.

“I told the applicant to stop making these late-night visits because our daughter, who had to be at school in the morning, would have been asleep when he was here, as I discovered that his goal in coming to my house at such a late hour was not to see our daughter but to obtain sexual favors, even after our relationship had ended.

“The applicant chose to cease seeing or phoning our daughter after I refused him entry into my home at strange hours of the night under the pretense of seeing her. This has been the applicant’s routine with our daughter throughout their relationship.

“He would cease taking care of his daughter and abandon her if I refused to be his sex slave. He would then use our daughter’s anguish over his absence as leverage to get me to comply with his unhealthy expectations.

She said, “I have never prevented the applicant or his family members from contacting, visiting, or getting back in touch with our daughter.”

The respondent reiterated that, in contrast to Davido’s assertion, he has not been dependable in covering his daughter’s tuition, having fallen behind in 2021 and 2022 and receiving a letter from the school in January 2023 regarding the outstanding balance.

She stated, “The school sent me an email informing me that until all unpaid fees from 2021 to 2023 were paid off, our daughter would not be permitted entry into the school.”

Momodu informed the court that Davido’s father had stepped in and covered the cost of the schooling.

She clarified that she has been the one paying the rent for the flat where she resides with her daughter, in contrast to Davido’s assertion, and that Davido did not purchase a home for them.

Despite her father’s carelessness, Momodu stated she has been giving her daughter the greatest care and would keep doing so since she is a loving mother.

At Friday’s hearing before Justice A. J. Bashua, the respondent was represented by a legal team headed by Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors Chief Anthony Idigbe, SAN.

Chief Idigbe brought attention to the hearing notice that Davido’s legal team had published in a major newspaper, which contained four mentions to his daughter.

Chief Idigbe and the judge both decided that the child’s name should not be disclosed at all, even if the press was allowed to report.

The judge then ordered everyone who wasn’t engaged in the case, including the litigants, the press, and other attorneys, to leave the courtroom for the hearing.

With the approval of the court, Chief Idigbe alerted the media of Section 143 of the Lagos State 2015 Child’s Rights Law before they departed.

It stipulates that: “Only the parties to the case, the court’s officers, and members may attend court in an instance involving a child.

Additionally, it states that everyone who was actively involved in the case, including their attorneys and solicitors, the child’s parents and guardians, and other parties, might enter at any time.

Chief Idigbe also brought up Section 144 of the law, which forbids revealing a child’s identity in print.

The clause states: “Except as required by the provisions of this law, no person shall publish the name, address, school, photograph, or anything likely to lead to the identification of a child in a matter before the court.”

He also cited Section 145 of the kid Rights Law, which states that “the court proceedings must be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, allowing the child to express himself and participate in the proceedings.” This is in the child’s best interest.

Momodu criticized the suit’s publishing in a major newspaper in the counter-affidavit as well.

“By releasing this lawsuit in a national newspaper, the applicant (Davido) has put our daughter in grave danger.”

“In order to guarantee our daughter’s safety at school, I would have to put in place additional security measures,” she said.

At the conclusion of the hearing, it was discovered that the matter had been referred by the court to its Alternative Dispute Resolution division for potential settlement during Settlement Week.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *