UPDATE ON EKWEREMADU CASE !
The following three things occurred in the past one week:
(1) Ekweremadu and his wife appeared again in court (yesterday). They appeared separately. They are not in the same prison. They have not seen or spoken with each other since their arraignment on 23rd June. The wife requested to appear with her husband, and the magistrate turned that request down. Why keep them unable to communicate? It must be so that they will not rehearse and coordinate their stories.
(2) The court again failed to grant Ekweremadu bail. It is reported that no bail application has been filed. There must have been an oral application that the court turned down earlier. Whether a formal bail application is filed or not, on arraignment, a criminal court must make a decision as to whether to release an accused person on bail or to remand him. This court decided to remand them.
(3) A Federal High Court in Nigeria has ordered the relevant Nigerian agencies to release the identity records of David Ukpo to show he is 21, instead of 15. But this is not necessary. The British already saw his passport stating that he is 21. They simply did not trust Nigerian immigration department. They believe that the age on the passport might not be accurate. So, sending them the same information they already saw on the passport does not help.
If Ekweremadu is tried in the UK over this matter, he will most likely be convicted and sentenced to years in prison.
The only way Ekweremadu can escape is based on the fact that the conspiracy in question occurred in Nigeria. Or that a substantial part of it occurred in Nigeria. It was in Nigeria that the offense originated. When a crime is committed partly outside the UK, the UK government may decline to prosecute the accused. But that may require Nigeria pledging to prosecute Ekweremadu in Nigeria. In this regard, the diplomatic initiative from Nigeria is to persuade the British Government to return Ekweremadu to Niger to face justice in Nigeria.
For this case to go forward, the Attorney General of the UK must give her approval. It is very likely that she would decline to give suh approval and that means that Ekweremadu and his wife will be deported back to their country to stand trial in Nigeria. Diplomatic option will likely prevail.
But remember that Britain may remind Nigeria that on two previous high profile cases, Nigerian Government begged Britian to try Nigerians in the UK, instead of sending them back to NIgeria. The first of such case that comes to memory is the case of Diepreye Alamieyeseigha. In that case, the accused begged to be returned to Nigeria. NIgerian Attorney General flew to London to beg the British court not to return him to Nigeria. He told the British court that the Nigerian courts were too corrupt. Also, in the case of Ibori, Nigerian Government went to London and begged for Ibori not to be tried in Nigeria. So, if Nigeria comes now to ask for Ekweremadu to be returned to Nigeria, the British may use the previous argument against them.
The society you abused today will Tomorrow take a revenge on you.
The hospital Ekweremadu had all opportunities to build in his Homeland but he refused , is today dragging him to prison in another man’s land !
WHERE IS THE BEST AND SAFEST PLACE TO OBTAIN AN ORGAN FOR EKWEREMADU’S CHILD?
(By Emeka Ugwuonye, Esquire)
As I thought more about the case of Ekweremadu and the need to find a kidney for his sick child, something came to my mind. The David Ukpos of this world are the wrong places to source such organ.
In the whole of the discussions over the case of Ekweremadu, one word seems to stand out as the most important word. That word is “exploitation”. Unfortunately, many people do not understand why that word dominates the debate. There was a reason why the lawmakers all over the world insisted that donation of human body parts must be free and without any commercial motive. He who donates his organ must do it free of charge as an act of charity. Also, he who receives organ must not pay for it.
Jurisprudence is the theory and philosophy of law. There are always some deeply embedded philosophical value to every aspect of the law. It is only when you understand that philosophical or moral value behind each aspect of the law that you can consider yourself knowledgeable in the law. So, why is it that the relevant British law governing organ donation made it a crime for a person to obtain organ with money, and why did the law insist that it must be done in non-exploitative manner? It is actually very simple to answer these questions.
First, there is a serious moral question at stake here. We do not want human body parts (organs) to become tradeable like motor spare parts. We must continue to value human lives and we must continue to uphold the sanctity of human life. For the moralists and people of the faiths, the human body part is part of what God put in human beings during creation. If you remember the argument over stem cells and the continued arguments over abortion, it is all based on our view of human life. Once you leave organ harvesting up to people to buy and sell, you will return us to the era when human beings could be traded, albeit now in bits and pieces, (as parts instead of a whole human being.
Another moral concern over trading in human body parts is that the poor will be the ones to sell their organs and the rich will be the ones to buy. In other words, trading in human organs will definitely result in a situation where the poor will be dying in order for the rich to live. (It is the fact that such is already happening that many consider our world unfair and unjust. Why do more of it by allowing exploitation of the poor by the rich to extend to the rich harvesting the organs of the poor?).
If care is not taken over this matter, we may come to a situation where the rich and the powerful will start breeding human beings for the purpose of having a steady supply of human organs for their own needs. Also, consider the fact that free trade in human organs will result in criminal gangs springing up to kidnap people and harvest their organs for sale. Furthermore, it may result in the powerful nations of the world coming to Africa to buy human body parts for the good life of their people. This will be a reenactment of a worse version of slave trade.
Now, to my question: Why did Ekweremadu try to buy organ from David Ukpo? Why didn’t he get an organ from the children of his fellow Senators or from the friends of his daughter? The reason is obvious. Only the poor would agree to sell their organs. Looking at the whole case, the safest source of organ for Sonia Ekweremadu should have been the Ekweremadu family itself. Why didn’t Senator Ekweremadu or his wife done their own kidney to their child? Ekweremadu has other children that are adults: why didn’t he persuade any of his other children to donate one kidney to their sister? The reason is that they are too rich to lose an organ. The life of every person in Ekweremadu’s family is worth more than the life of David Ukpo. David does not deserve to have two kidney: he must sell one to sustain the life of the rich, who cannot afford to die while the Davids of this world live their worthless lives.
To see the exploitative nature of the arrangement, once the organ of David was found not to be a match, the Ekweremadu had no further use of David. They wouldn’t even want to see him hanging around their space. So, they asked him to go back to Nigeria. When David realized that he really meant nothing to the Ekweremadus, that their interest in him was limited to obtaining his organ, he felt so low and betrayed.
Anybody telling you that the intentions of the Ekweremadu toward David were not exploitative is grossly mistaken. They used the boy. The British can see that very easily. That is why I believe that unless there is a successful diplomatic intervention from the Nigerian Government, Senator Ekweremadu and his wife are likely to be convicted and sentenced.
Senator Ike Ekweremadu Spent Over 20yrs At The Senate , And He Couldn’t Build A Standard Hospital In His Senatorial Zone , Even As A Deputy Senate President, He Was In charge Of Budget Approval.
They Think They Were Doing Us ?
