GogobiriLalas:
The problem is that none of the alleged incidence occurred in Canada, except for the fact that Stephanie resides there, it will be difficult to see any basis upon which a Canadian court will exercise jurisdiction...not sure what Canadian law is on this though...but I know that in Wiwa v. Shell B.P A New York Court exercised Jurisdiction purely on the basis of residency...very interesting suit

Apostle Suleiman has a church and residence in canada, go back and check the law suits address. And besides Otobo said they have met in Canada before.

Moneyyy:
Is the Apostle living in Canada? Do Canadian courts have jurisdiction in Nigeria? This girl is funny and has a mission.

Suleman is an investor in Canadian properties and business

GoldHorse:


Look at the court papers. He has a registered place of abode in Canada and that's where the papers were addressed.

An investor in properties and business

[quote author=bid4rich post=55753750]Which one does she (Otobo) need? Surgery of the brain or of the spirit?

How can someone be living in Nigeria and you are taking him to Canada

Apst Suleman is an iNvestor in properties and businesses in Canada.

Moneyyy:
Is the Apostle living in Canada? Do Canadian courts have jurisdiction in Nigeria? This girl is funny and has a mission.

You can sue anyone in the world from your place of residence especially if they have assets in that location which the court can seize

Dongreat:
Good one Otobo. Sue that bald man. You think is every fornication that God will punish you? Nah he will leave it for man to do. Otobo I believed you since the day you spoke and brought evidence.

fool. What evidence did she bring?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0ULTtr3dbM

Na wa o

This lady no dey rest, tell her I have cleared Sule of all his demeanors....Case closed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70kqD5G_tb4&app=desktop

linearity:


Canada have jurisdiction, both personal and subject matter jurisdiction; and the court will have jurisdiction to hear the case, if it can assert either, but in this case they have both...Canada have subject matter jurisdiction because, the plaintiff alleged that part of the allegations were committed within Canadian territory...Canada can also assert personal jurisdiction, because the defendant own properties in Canada.

This is a civil case, she does not need iron clad evidence. She does not need to proof beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain her claims...she only need to prove by a preponderance of evidence, which is a lesser proof burden and threshold. In a proof requiring only preponderance of evidence, to sustain their claim on each count, the plaintiff need only proof either through her testimony or evidence that the defendant 'more than likely' committed the allegation.

Also remember, there are 16 allegations against the Pastor, so even if she could not prove 1, there are 15 mor; and base on the evidences out there, it is doubtful if at least one or two of the charges will not stick. And if only one charge sticks, that will negate all of the Pastor's innocence and pronouncements that, he had never met her and was only sending her money out of the kindness of his heart.

As much as it is nice to always have a signed contract...you don't need a dully signed contract for it to be enforceable in a law court. Majority of contracts out there are oral contracts, it is up to the Judge to decide who is more believable...and sometimes duly signed contracts are not enforceable, you have to look at the content and the circumstance surrounding it.

No one, including the Pastor should take any court case with levity, any false move you are gone and I believe the Pastor will address this with the ultimate seriousness that it deserves.

Firstly, Canadian law is based on British common law.

There is still a requirement for evidential substantiation. So making an allegation in itself is not evidence.

In making legal claims that are based almost entirely on hearsay evidence is considerably hard, even with a lower burden of proof.

Integrity and credibility will become the principal for progression as well as the, simple argument based on the Reasonable Man Test.

From what I have seen she fails on both principle tests.

texazzpete:


Just because you love the Apostle, that's no reason to try to pass across uninformed conjecture as factual information

I actually do not have any affinity or sentimental bias for this CEO of a Church, and or Miss Otobo.

I also have not made any judgement call based on morality or assumed Christian ethics. Its irrelevant.

What is relevant is the evidential substantiation and not conjecture or presumption. If I assume nobody is telling the truth. Then what has been established and proven and I do not mean circumstantial presumption.

In this regard what have I presented as FACT

GogobiriLalas:
Not sure the facts are as you stated but if they her then the Court may assert subject matter and personam jurisdiction....an easier way would be for them to use a long arm statute bearing in mind that the defendant could always plead forum non convenien...how do you compell appearance?

The Canadian court will first have to decide if it has jurisdiction or not. Usually, the person suing must state some statement of facts on that claims, putting forward why the court have jurisdiction to hear the case. The opposing party can also challenge those statements, even without a challenge, courts on their own usually answer the jurisdictional question and will only move forward if they think, they have jurisdiction.

If the court asserts jurisdiction and the plaintiff can prove the defendant was severed, the defendant have certain days to file an answer with the court. These are usually short answers...where the defendant can just accept as true or denied or state that, they do not have sufficient information to accept or denied each allegation of the plaintiff. If the defendant did not file the answer, the plaintiff can move the court to render judgement in their favor on the entirety of their case...the court will usually deny this motion and give the defendant more time to file an answer...but after about 3-5 adjournment without the defendant showing or answering, the gavel will come down against them....The court will not go out of its way to compel appearance.

Convenient forum motions are usually, when a lot of the evidences are in another location and it will be near impossible to move them to this forum. The dependence can definitely file the motion, alone with motion challenging jurisdiction or immediately after....but there is no strict rules about this as it is up to the Judge to grant or deny it. But, the Plaintiff can raise the fact that Nigeria is an inconvenience forum and that her rights will be tampered upon and also that, she will not be able to get justice in Nigeria...she can even cite the fact that, the Nigeria judicial system had abused her rights in this case already, e.g. holding in a cell beyond the 48 hours allowed by the Nigeria law before charging her to court, she can allege that the defendant used his influence and power to punish her and also that the Nigeria court is corrupt and the Canadian court might be sympathetic to that, because they will be able to provide evidence to provide their points.

Semper247:


See one of them, senseless people occupying cyber space.

They can't even reason any longer..... Irredeemably senseless

I am not sure what your point is Because you do not contest the points I have made and or even address the ssues I have highlighted.

Contest and contend with the subject, show how objectively analytical, intelligent and or informed you are.

Please don't just make uncontrolled and erratic rantings, it's not a sign of intelligence.

dragonking3:
You are an atheist, I understand how you feel

Nope. Wrong guess. I'm a Christian. Not a Pastor worshipper like you

IamaNigerianGuy:


Like Jesus in the Bible, I support the Ashewo over the fake Apostle.

Canada is not Nigeria; there's a concept there called Rule of Law which we are not familiar with in these parts.
There is also Critical Thinking -the shameless charlatan cannot twist the legal process and buy public sympathy from brain washed buffoons like he can here.

There is a lot of evidence to be tendered in this case and the justice system will examine it on merit.
The Canadians will find something to pin on the ars..e of this fake pastor and at the very least, he will be limited to traveling within Africa and to backwater nations lest he be extradited.

Suleiman you just got served.

Apostle my black arse.

Considering that Canadian law is essentially British common law. Firstly, this is not a criminal breach of law. This is a civil law suit, based on allegations.

Bear in your mind what constitutes evidence can you tell me WHAT EVIDENCE you are making reference too.

Koolking:


16 Count-charge offence for one man - a supposed man of God? The man must be really wicked.

On a serious note, Lawyers are very funny set of people. If they count all your offence for a little misdemeanor, you would be pondering when you committed all the offences listed against you.

Lawyers are simply troublemakers than peacemakers

Great profession Win or Loose you get PAID.

komekn:


Firstly, Canadian law is based on British common law.

There is still a requirement for evidential substantiation. So making an allegation in itself is not evidence.

In making legal claims that are based almost entirely on hearsay evidence is considerably hard, even with a lower burden of proof.

Integrity and credibility will become the principal for progression as well as the, simple argument based on the Reasonable Man Test.

From what I have seen she fails on both principle tests.

None of her her allegations are based on heresay...If I missed some, can you please list the ones that fall under the heresay doctrine? Remember, that heresay means, you did not witness what you are saying, you heard it from someone, who is not in court to personally testify to it.

Reading through her allegations and what she has been putting out on the internet, she was actively involved and as such, they are not heresay...though, none of us can state with 100% if they are true, that is for the court to decide, but her evidence will go in. The other thing the defendant lawyers can do is to challenge the chain of custody of her evidence e.g. the snapchat, facebook, chats, text, etc...because she alleges that her phone and laptop got lost, how then was she able to get those things? But, if she retrieve them from a backup, or later found the phone/laptop, the defendants will fall flat or they have to bring forth their own prove that, she did not find the phone/laptop or they were not retrieved.

Yes, making an allegation is not evidence; at trial one is require to prove each count of their allegation either through their testimony and/or exhibits properly entered into the records.

I do not see her falling on both counts...my guess is, what you meant by 'Evidential Substantiation', is what is called 'Authentication'...Yes, she have to authenticate each of her evidence, even a graduate lawyer can walk her through how to authenticate her evidence and it is very simple...if it is a facebook chat...all she need to say (or through a series of ask/answer sections with her lawyer) is that..."I Miss.....took these snapchats on x and y days, at x time, at y location and it is a true representation of my conversation with x and y".

She does not need to provide any digital forensic to prove their authenticity...rather, it is the defense that has to do that, should they want to challenge her evidence.

mrborntodoit:
Apostle no dey live for Canada, make she come file suit for Nigeria

Nigerian Court? I no wan talk.

remedick:



This is what we have been saying ooo. Provide concrete proof but the idiot keep providing blanket statements that holds no water and only dunces think what she revealed are evidence.

But she already did that. See for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmD1yvj2EDE

ojimbo:
oh my dear. Sorry for you have not traveled outside Nigeria not to talk of seeking for a sojourn in a civilised nation. When you are applying for asylum. Which is international protection. The country will even advice you to reduce your age.
So dont even try to put fear in her because she knows more than you do

Your lack of knowledge is quite astonishing.

I could tell you about my professional, academic and experiential competencies, which include oversight function in the UK Home office. But that would be over kill.

I came to Nigeria I never left to the UK.

swiperthefox:
But she already did that. See for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmD1yvj2EDE

Some of you are funny.

He sent money to her is not a ground to assume liability in a lawsuit. Last time I checked he gave money and cars to others as well.
All the evidence Otobo has will be given to Suleimsn's attorneys as well for scrutiny. They can file a motion to compel the prosecutor to share evidence.
Lawsuit is like a game of chess. When you think you have it, another surprises spring up. If Suleiman has evidence of Otobo demanding N500m as alleged, his defense team can start the spinning from there. Is she getting an attorney on pro bono? Billable attorney hours, calls, etc will destroy her.

This is not a criminal case (the State vs Suleiman). So the burden of proof is on Otobo and she has to pay to get expert testimonies, etc. The court will stand aside, here testimonies and evidence, then pass judgment. Assuming she wins, Suleimsn's attorney will appeal.

But first of all, Suleiman must be served the right way. That will be the first litmus test.

Codes151:
its your fada That's stupid! Mannerless gay

lol thanks for proving my point..oya shattap Negro

linearity:


None of her her allegations are based on heresay...If I missed some, can you please list the ones that fall under the heresay doctrine? Remember, that heresay means, you did not witness what you are saying, you heard it from someone, who is not in court to personally testify to it.

Reading through her allegations and what she has been putting out on the internet, she was actively involved and as such, they are not heresay...though, none of us can state with 100% if they are true, that is for the court to decide, but her evidence will go in. The other thing the defendant lawyers can do is to challenge the chain of custody of her evidence e.g. the snapchat, facebook, chats, text, etc...because she alleges that her phone and laptop got lost, how then was she able to get those things? But, if she retrieve them from a backup, or later found the phone/laptop, the defendants will fall flat or they have to bring forth their own prove that, she did not find the phone/laptop or they were not retrieved.

Yes, making an allegation is not evidence; at trial one is require to prove each count of their allegation either through their testimony and/or exhibits properly entered into the records.

I do not see her falling on both counts...my guess is, what you meant by 'Evidential Substantiation', is what is called 'Authentication'...Yes, she have to authenticate each of her evidence, even a graduate lawyer can walk her through how to authenticate her evidence and it is very simple...if it is a facebook chat...all she need to say (or through a series of ask/answer sections with her lawyer) is that..."I Miss.....took these snapchats on x and y days, at x time, at y location and it is a true representation of my conversation with x and y".

She does not need to provide any digital forensic to prove their authenticity...rather, it is the defense that has to do that, should they want to challenge her evidence.

Her allegations and claims are hinged on hearsay evidence tied to circumstance. How reasonable?

You are using rhetoric which is implied but without a definitive framework to portray seemingly unsubstantiated evidence even conversations recorded on her laptop. That evidence may be ruled inadmissible, no consent and suggested entrapment. Making a personal authentication is not credible evidence, based on your say so. He said /She said evidence is what I loosely term hearsay and is the substance of thier contention.

Hearsay is not so restrictive in its parameters by your
definition. But I will quote below a simple extract below in reference to Canadian law of which the essential principal is not lost.

Hearsay evidence is any statement, either written or oral, which was made out of court, but is presented in court to prove the truth of that statement. It is a type of evidence that is generally considered inadmissible.

Personal credibility will be a major issue for both of them. If they have been found to have intentionally misrepresented Themselves (Fraud) , essentially told a pack of lies to any official Canadian bodies, immigration for instance, etc.

Then personal credibility will be lost, in this regard Ms O could be in a position of disadvantage. That's the first failed test and the second is on insufficient evidence corroborated and or substantiated.


Personally I think the matter will be withdrawn once Suliemans lawyer get stuck into it. As you can imagine they will concentrate on her credibility.

Either way great drama. Meanwhile I don't think Suleiman is a saint and neither is Otobo holy Mary.

linearity:


The Canadian court will first have to decide if it has jurisdiction or not. Usually, the person suing must state some statement of facts on that claims, putting forward why the court have jurisdiction to hear the case. The opposing party can also challenge those statements, even without a challenge, courts on their own usually answer the jurisdictional question and will only move forward if they think, they have jurisdiction.

If the court asserts jurisdiction and the plaintiff can prove the defendant was severed, the defendant have certain days to file an answer with the court. These are usually short answers...where the defendant can just accept as true or denied or state that, they do not have sufficient information to accept or denied each allegation of the plaintiff. If the defendant did not file the answer, the plaintiff can move the court to render judgement in their favor on the entirety of their case...the court will usually deny this motion and give the defendant more time to file an answer...but after about 3-5 adjournment without the defendant showing or answering, the gavel will come down against them....The court will not go out of its way to compel appearance.

Convenient forum motions are usually, when a lot of the evidences are in another location and it will be near impossible to move them to this forum. The dependence can definitely file the motion, alone with motion challenging jurisdiction or immediately after....but there is no strict rules about this as it is up to the Judge to grant or deny it. But, the Plaintiff can raise the fact that Nigeria is an inconvenience forum and that her rights will be tampered upon and also that, she will not be able to get justice in Nigeria...she can even cite the fact that, the Nigeria judicial system had abused her rights in this case already, e.g. holding in a cell beyond the 48 hours allowed by the Nigeria law before charging her to court, she can allege that the defendant used his influence and power to punish her and also that the Nigeria court is corrupt and the Canadian court might be sympathetic to that, because they will be able to provide evidence to provide their points.

I think this is more of a forum non convenien issue, the case was filed in a Canadian court, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the forum is inconvenient,; take Wiwa v. Shell B.P for example, the key reason why N.Y exercised Jurisdiction in that case was because Shell was transnational it can't claim forum non convenien, it had reached out and availed itself of the forum in a purposeful systematic and continuous manner...The Apostle doesn't fall under this category, true he has a church in Canada but that falls under the charitable organizations. exception, besides he is the one being sued, not the Church, Otobo's lawyers could do well joining the Church in the defense...apart from this there's also the issue of witnesses availability and accessibility to evidence...it is hard to see how a plea for inconvenience would not be sustained....I don't know how persuasive American precedence is to Canadian courts but under American law the court will have to transfer...

komekn:


Her allegations and claims are hinged on hearsay evidence tied to circumstance. How reasonable?

You are using rhetoric which is implied but without a definitive framework to portray seemingly unsubstantiated evidence even conversations recorded on her laptop. That evidence may be ruled inadmissible, no consent and suggested entrapment. Making a personal authentication is not credible evidence, based on your say so. He said /She said evidence is what I loosely term hearsay and is the substance of thier contention.

Hearsay is not so restrictive in its parameters by your
definition. But I will quote below a simple extract below in reference to Canadian law of which the essential principal is not lost.

Hearsay evidence is any statement, either written or oral, which was made out of court, but is presented in court to prove the truth of that statement. It is a type of evidence that is generally considered inadmissible.

Personal credibility will be a major issue for both of them. If they have been found to have intentionally misrepresented Themselves (Fraud) , essentially told a pack of lies to any official Canadian bodies, immigration for instance, etc.


Then personal credibility will be lost, in this regard Ms O could be in a position of disadvantage. That's the first failed test and the second is on insufficient evidence corroborated and or substantiated.


Personally I think the matter will be withdrawn once Suliemans lawyer get stuck into it. As you can imagine they will concentrate on her credibility.

Either way great drama. Meanwhile I don't think Suleiman is a saint and neither is Otobo holy Mary.

Personal credibility will only be question, if all the evidence one have is his/her own testimony. However, if you have additional exhibits to collaborate your in court testimony, even if you had lied in the past, that will not be held against one.

We are both on the same page, that both of them might have some credibility issues, but to say that the case is dead merely because of that is very premature.

Lastly, the definition for 'Hearsay' you posted is wrong, if you took it from somewhere online, you deliberately left some vital information. Out of court statements are not 'Hearsay', if repeated in court by the person that said them or witness them been said out of court. Your definition of hearsay is so broad such that, it will exclude 100% of witness testimonies from been considered.

This is a full quote from wikipedia on hearsay and it includes what you left out in your quote above, and I also provided the wikipedia link below, note the highlight portion:

"...Hearsay evidence is "an out-of-court statement introduced to prove the truth of matter asserted therein". In certain courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible (the "Hearsay Evidence Rule" unless an exception to the Hearsay Rule applies.

For example, to prove Tom was in town, the attorney asks a witness, "What did Susan tell you about Tom being in town?" Since the witness's answer will rely on an out-of-court statement that Susan made, Susan is not available for cross-examination, and it is to prove the truth that Tom was in town, it is hearsay. A justification for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not in court and thus is insulated from cross-examination. Note, however, that if the attorney asking the same question is not trying to prove the truth of the assertion about Tom being in town but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation case against Susan because now the witness is asked about the opposing party's statement that constitutes a verbal act..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

As you can see, the hearsay doctrine does not apply to her...because, she is not quoting what someone else told her that the Pastor did, she is stating what she experience and can relate to...and as such it is not hearsay.

GogobiriLalas:
I think this is more of a forum non convenien issue, the case was filed in a Canadian court, the burden of proof is on the defense to show that the forum is inconvenient,; take Wiwa v. Shell B.P for example, the key reason why N.Y exercised Jurisdiction in that case was because Shell was transnational it can't claim forum non convenien, it had reached out and availed itself of the forum in a purposeful systematic and continuous manner...The Apostle doesn't fall under this category, true he has a church in Canada but that falls under the charitable organizations. exception, besides he is the one being sued, not the Church, Otobo's lawyers could do well joining the Church in the defense...apart from this there's also the issue of witnesses availability and accessibility to evidence...it is hard to see how a plea for inconvenience would not be sustained....I don't know how persuasive American precedence is to Canadian courts but under American law the court will have to transfer...

That is true, they will have a case if the defense file an inconvenience forum motion. Especially, when some of the claims e.g. the one about giving her concoction to drink, poisoning, malicious prosecution, etc occurred in Nigeria. The only witness might be her parents in the case of the marriage claims, I doubt if there is any evidence in Nigeria that can be easily accessed by a Canadian court.

But if you look at the way her lawyer framed the claims...they came with the anger that, she was a minor in Canada, when the sexual assaults began, including harassment....The truth is, no court in Canada will defer a case to another Country is a sexual assault of a minor within their territory has been alleged to have occurred, even the US will not do that.

Her lawyers can even amend her claims by cutting off the things that happened in Nigeria and for things like kidnapping, forcible imprisonment, etc though happened in Nigeria, they can allege violation of her human rights, which can be prosecuted anywhere.

Moreso, Canada have a broad and liberal interpretation and application of personal jurisdiction, they take the plaintiff-oriented approach to jurisdiction. If the tort been claimed was suffered in Canada, despite the fact that the injury leading to the tort occurred somewhere else and by someone in a foreign Nation, Canada can take over personal jurisdiction over the other person and the case...they are oriented in such a way to protect their residents. E.g. If she can proof that, she suffered pains, humiliations, etc after returning to Canada, after the imprisonment in Nigeria or that she suffered stomach pains in Canada after taking that portion in Nigeria...despite the fact that, the actual event that lead to the pains occurred outside Canada and even if the Pastor has zero property or connection to Canada, Canada will assert jurisdiction over the case and the pastor, so as to protect their residents.

GogobiriLalas:
The problem is that none of the alleged incidence occurred in Canada, except for the fact that Stephanie resides there, it will be difficult to see any basis upon which a Canadian court will exercise jurisdiction...not sure what Canadian law is on this though...but I know that in Wiwa v. Shell B.P A New York Court exercised Jurisdiction purely on the basis of residency...very interesting suit

As a poster earlier said, the Canadian court has both personal and subject-matter over Suleiman. The personal jurisdiction arises because Suleiman owns property within that court's jurisdiction. Of course, the allegations raised by Stephanie are also within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

linearity:


That is true, they will have a case if the defense file an inconvenience forum motion. Especially, when some of the claims e.g. the one about giving her concoction to drink, poisoning, malicious prosecution, etc occurred in Nigeria. The only witness might be her parents in the case of the marriage claims, I doubt if there is any evidence in Nigeria that can be easily accessed by a Canadian court.

But if you look at the way her lawyer framed the claims...they came with the anger that, she was a minor in Canada, when the sexual assaults began, including harassment....The truth is, no court in Canada will defer a case to another Country is a sexual assault of a minor within their territory has been alleged to have occurred, even the US will not do that.

Her lawyers can even amend her claims by cutting off the things that happened in Nigeria and for things like kidnapping, forcible imprisonment, etc though happened in Nigeria, they can allege violation of her human rights, which can be prosecuted anywhere.

Moreso, Canada have a broad and liberal interpretation and application of personal jurisdiction, they take the plaintiff-oriented approach to jurisdiction. If the tort been claimed was suffered in Canada, despite the fact that the injury leading to the tort occurred somewhere else and by someone in a foreign Nation, Canada can take over personal jurisdiction over the other person and the case...they are oriented in such a way to protect their residents. E.g. If she can proof that, she suffered pains, humiliations, etc after returning to Canada, after the imprisonment in Nigeria or that she suffered stomach pains in Canada after taking that portion in Nigeria...despite the fact that, the actual event that lead to the pains occurred outside Canada and even if the Pastor has zero property or connection to Canada, Canada will assert jurisdiction over the case and the pastor, so as to protect their residents.

very valid points...but how do you compell appearance, yes summary judgment as you earlier stated could be entered but all the defense has to do is state a defense and such a judgement would be vacated statute of limitations considered. What I'm saying is that without defendant's full participation any judgement in absentia could easily be contested for example the initial pleading by the plaintiffs could be contested as biased in favor of the plaintiffs, it is confusing, it fails to state a triable issue absent evidence, necessary parties were not joined etc. Can the defense not even move for a motion to dismiss? Let's even say the Court insists on hearing the suit, can the Apostle not counter sue for Human Rights violation? Let's suppose that the case goes on trial and defendant is found guilty, is there a reciprocal arrangement between Nigeria and Canada, can Apostle be extradited? A possibility will be to file suit at the ICJ or some other International forum for violation of international human trafficking laws...but that's another issue entirely, the way it stands all a Canadian court can do is offer an opinion suo ponte and that will be a waste of judicial time.

CFCman:


As a poster earlier said, the Canadian court has both personal and subject-matter over Suleiman. The personal jurisdiction arises because Suleiman owns property within that court's jurisdiction. Of course, the allegations raised by Stephanie are also within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.

I hear you, but how do you compell appearance, owning property gives the Court in rem jurisdiction, in personam jurisdiction is another issue...yes a lien could be placed on the property but appearance will only be guaranteed by the store the defense places on the property...

mrborntodoit:
Apostle no dey live for Canada, make she come file suit for Nigeria

I no know say you sef see am...!

komekn:
He actually has nothing to say.

Any buffoon can pursue litigation file a suit to say anything. That's freedom to justice.

Establishing the evidential basis to take it further is another matter. From what I can see she has made a very big mistake.

It may end in her being deported back to Nigeria. I have experienced cases brought forward by Nigerians in England. This is not Nigeria, where the assumption is that any story is credible. If you can't prove something it simple means it did not happen. A

Already there are gaps in her story that have been proven untrue. Once you integrity has been put to question and found wanting from that point anything you say is not credible.

If Sulieman decides to allow his lawyers to take the matter up. All her history in Nigeria will be revealed and substantiated. Generally when it comes to immigration Africans tell multiple lies. Firstly, her age will be established to be untrue quite easily. She is certainly not 23.

I await the drama.

Na true you talk! As for the concoction she claimed the pastor gave her, she would have to submit a lab report containing an analysis of the contents of that concoction to the Canadian court, before she can win this case. I hope she still has samples of the concoction left for testing.

The staff of the medical centre where she was treated for the bleeding would also have to testify in her favour. And she needs to provide proof that the foetus she miscarried was fathered by the pastor. Pheew! I wish her luck.

Finally, she would have to submit proof of her age in court too. There are various tests to ascertain such things. Wetin Fela talk? "Trouble dey sleep, yanga go wake am, na wetin e dey find ooo..."