₦airaland Forum

Nozino:
We do.

Let’s use myself as an example. If I agree to donate my kidney to you and you agree to sponsor my medicals in the UK, I would make it a requirement that irrespective of the outcome, I’d get some benefits. So if the outcome isn’t positive, and I get paid what we agreed on, why would I report you?

I can ask for enough to pay for a deposit to pursue my MSc. I won’t mind returning to Nigeria after I have been paid to perfect my plans.

But what happens when you promised me a job only to be told by a Dr that I was getting tested to check my kidney compatibility with another person, someone I don’t know? To be an organ donor to a person I have never said hello to? Of course I’d tell the Dr that I have no idea I was trafficked to get my organs harvested.

The criminal senator going for a vulnerable, poor , educated orphan says everything I need to know about this case.

If you are interested in asylum, you'd easily lie against him. Not everyone is interested in MSc and the only legal way to remain in the abroad without job or education is asylum. So no matter what the senator promised, it's possible he went for the big fish. Besides, the mere fact that lying could help you stay in the UK without having to donate your kidney is motif enough. You get to have the best of both worlds.

The key word is in the paragraph above is "possible". Something you've refused to acknowledge.

Nozino:
I promise you that this case can only go one way.


Easy. The boy has to reason to lie to gain asylum!!! If he puts in an asylum request today, he would get it immediately. His life is already at risk and the Nigerian government helped his case by sending a delegation to “assist “ the organ harvesting senator and has done nothing to help the poor boy who is also a Nigerian citizen.

You're talking about asylum when the case hasn't been decided. The outcome of this case is about who is guilty and who isn't. His asylum or the absence of thereof is a different case that would require a different hearing. So when I say the case could go either way, that wasn't even on the table. The senator may or may not be guilty. That's what I meant. He could be lying, the boy could be lying too.

Gemma11:
The very fact that Ekweremadu purchased this boy's ticket to the UK, paid his visa fee, accomodated him at his home in London is enough payment and incentive to allow any poor youth from the streets of Lagos to a percieved better life in the UK.

The guy won't end up in jail over this as it would be easy to prove that he is the vulnerable poor one lured by the rich Senator and his wife.
You guys don't understand that this ban of buying organs is a safeguarding measure to protect the poor who can be easily lured in by rich people to sell their body parts at price. The law serves a levelling ground for all regardless of wealth of the individual. Nobody wants to live in a world where only poor people reduced to just bodies of spare parts for rich people to buy at will. Do you?

All these are valid it there are no explicit transactions between the parties. When the law says that both the buyer and seller are culpable, you think it doesn't know that the seller would likely be the poorer one?

Silentgroper:
Hahahahaha.. So when women uses d phrase "men are scum" are they referring to just one man?

You and I are on this platform. We both see the strong campaign against one gender. You'd be pretending if you claim you're not aware or this. You'd have to search the forum for a minute or two to see thar express "men are scum". It's not frequent and it's always a one off thing. You can't compare that to the numerous trades people create everyday just to insult women. A lot usernames on this platform just exist to type trash about women. You may think nothing of it but you're just telling the world y'all were raised by wicked harlots.

Nozino:
I’m not saying anything. The boy claimed he wasn’t aware and that Is what I’m working with.

That's the danger of a single story. There are multiple parties involved here and each has thier own story. Why would a neutral person decide to world with one person's story? The point here is that we don't have enough to say who's lying at the moment.

Gemma11:
That is not how it works my love...previous UK Law Student here.

Come back to me when you're done with your degree, mon amour.

Nozino:
I do not claim to be a legal expert. From what I read on the story from ccn, the young boy already said that he had no idea that he was trafficked to the UK to have his organs harvested.

Why is it difficult for you to believe that a Nigerian politician can lie and probably take advantage of this boy?

And yes, it is very easy and believable that a Deputy Senator whose entire family is based on the UK offered him a job in the UK!!!

Why is it hard for me to believe a Nigerian politician can lie? What are you saying? Do you think I'm here to defend a politician I don't even know? I've been saying the case could go either ways and as of now, there is not telling how it'd end cause any of the parties could be lying (or even both).

The question is, why is so hard for you to believe that a poor Nigerian guy could easily lie to get asylum?

IamAsiri:
Such nonsense has been happening since, which is why so many cases of human trafficking, both male and female alike. People have been promised a good life outside the shores of Nigeria, with the agreement that they will pay back the money with which they were helped over time.

Yes, but this isn't exactly the same. If a huge amount of money was given to the man who is the traveler, he might have a hard claiming it wasn't a trade. The senator might have evidences to show it was trade but he can't present them now cause that would also put him in jail. However, he'd gladly present them if he sees the judgment is going against him. Only time will tell.

Nozino:
So people randomly donate kidneys to people living in another continent that they don’t know? Which Nigerian will do that? You?

So you're saying it's not a donation. Then it's trade and the seller will still be in trouble. It's almost catch-22 situation.

IamAsiri:
The only problem is when it is neither a trade nor a donation, called extortion, which is what the Ikeremadus are currently facing charges on. The UK embassy might have been duly informed but with the purported donor being unaware of what he was going to do, especially since he was just a poor young labourer according to him. That can also be easily verified.

It will be hard for him to say it's neither a trade nor a donation especially if there's evidence of money transfer to him. Like I said, In the absence of any paperworks, the court has to hear the guy's story to know how he thought a senator who didn't know him from anywhere would just decide to take him abroad, give him a job and a huge amount of money for nothing.

IamAsiri:
But even a donation needs a consent form, especially when it's something as huge as a living organ, not just a car or a house. Even a house donated nowadays will have a deed of transfer or something like that.

That's why I said it's not straightforward. In the absence of any paperworks, the court has to hear the guy's story to know how he thought a senator who didn't know him from anywhere would just decide to take him abroad, give him a job and a huge amount of money for nothing.

Silentgroper:
Men sleep with househelps.. Women dnt sleep with drivers, gatemen huh?

You guys are not intelligent at all.

The point up there is that men and women do everything bad and good. And we don't go around shouting "fear men" on this platform. When we read about skull mining, we say "afonjas", when we read about killings in the North, we say "Muslims", when a man rapes, we call out the man in question or call out rapists in general. But the moment the culprit is a woman, everyone makes it about the gender "fear women!", "that gender", etc.. Yet men have been doing worse things. It's preposterous.

Nozino:
It isn’t on him to prove anything. It is on the criminal to prove that the 15year old boy with no job, no education, nothing who he brought to the UK is not a minor, gave his consent without any incentives( read money) and he knew exactly why he was trafficked by the senator.

It is then left to the court to decide if the rule of law was followed.

Dude, if it was a trade, both the seller and the buyer becomes suspects and they'd both have to argue thier way out. So the idea of him not knowing why he was taken there is valid only on the premise that the money exchanged was not in purchase of the kidney. The senator just wants to give you a job and in addition also give you a lot of money? As if that's not enough, he had to take you the UK? Just because he loves you? Good luck arguing that in court.

As for the age, the court just ruled he's not 15. You can keep repeating that but it doesn't change the ruling and we've long moved away from that. We're now talking about consent.

IamAsiri:
Not if he isn't aware of this "trade".

This takes me back to my first post on this thread. The issue of consent. The senator is in trouble if he didn't explicitly consent to the donation or the trade as the case may be.

IamAsiri:
The senator will have to prove that he got paid then.

If he didn't get paid, then it's a donation. That means there's no crime. The only thing that would then make it a crime is if he didn't give consent. It's not a straightforward case.

Ohraykon:
selfish lady always talking from negative emotions and unnecessary gender war, you that came from a saint family to hell with you baskat gender!

First, I'm not a woman. Second, the title says "fear women" and I'm the one creating a gender war? You're the on typing trash about women and I'm the one starting a gender war? Funny the kind of people I'm chatting with on here.

1stGenAmerican:
Go to the BBC and read the original story or do a search here because I’ve already posted it many times. Trust me, he isn’t facing jail. The people facing jail are already sitting in jail cells in London. Goodbye Sir.

You have nothing, madam. Bye

1stGenAmerican:
People in sane countries don’t hate the poor as those in Nigeria do but instead do everything in their power to protect the poor. He’s considered a vulnerable individual that was being exploited by the senator and his wife.
The Nigerian delegation that showed up in the UK further demonstrates how those with power in Nigeria thrive on intimidation and coercion. Please don’t think that the UK officials didn’t see that for what it is.

The judge does not rely on emotions but facts. They are many Nigerians like him who have not sold thier kidneys. If he decided to sell his, it was a choice. That's after he's proven it was a trade. The case could go in many ways. Regardless of how much you dislike the senator, the outcome may not favour you. So wait and see how it goes instead coming up with unverifiable stories that don't count.

1stGenAmerican:
Simple, the UK Government gave a statement to UK news sources about the passport saying that he is 41 and the defense lawyers have not tried to address or debunk that statement. Under UK law, the boy would be considered vulnerable due to his financial status which is where they exploitation charges stem from.

You're just wasting my time. Was the news broadcast in your dream? Give us a link and let's all appreciate the story nah.

The financial status of the guy isn't worse than that of millions of Nigerians. So if he sold his kidney, he could face a jail term. This whole idea of debating what the court would sat doesn't make sense because we don't have a say in that. Like said, the best you can do is wait and hear the final judgment.

Nozino:
What are you saying ? Which court will jail a poor boy who was trafficked by the immediate past Deputy senate president of an African country?

Isn’t it obvious that this poor was trafficked to be taken advantaged off?

Well, I’m more interested in how the criminal senator will convince the court that the poor boy voluntarily agreed to donate his kidney to a lady he doesn’t know, have never met and has no relationship with. God is good brethren.

If the boy is not a boy but a man who was paid to give away his kidney, then he's guilty. So if the senator can't prove it was a donation, the boy will also be indicted especially now that it's been proven he's not a boy.

Ohraykon:
sharap women are more evil with all the good he did to her look at how she paid him back. How many times do you hear a man maltreating a good women? it is always women not appreciating good men, evil gender.

And men thar kill, rape, scam, etc. are saints. Dude, his wife and then women in your life are the evil ones. One thing common about all of you is the way you chat, it's very evident the kind of families y'all come from.

1stGenAmerican:
The passport confiscated by the UK courts state that he is 41 and the senator’s lawyer has refused to address that and call it a lie. I don’t have to provide proof because it’s obvious the UK government already has it.

The boy isn’t trying to win a case because he has not filed charges, the government has. The government is accusing the senator and his wife of committing crimes and misleading him, not the boy. What the government did allege in court today is that the senator and his wife were holding the boy captive (the Modern Slavery charge) and he escaped.

If you the UK government confiscated it, hoe did you see it or know about it? Are you the Prime Minister?

You're saying the kidney was purchased and not donated, fine. You're saying the boy is not the legal accuser, I agree he's not (but anyone calling another a liar has the burden of proof, legally or not). OK, let's roll with all these for a moment. Do you realize it still makes the boy a criminal? Or you think only the buyer is liable? You need to understand I'm not defending the senator. I don't care about him. It's about getting to the truth of the matter. Whether he's a good man or not has no bearing on that.

Nozino:
I guesss the criminal senator can explain to the court the reason a stranger decided to “donate” his kidney to a girl he has never met before

If it was a trade, both the seller and buyer are guilty. So I guess the boy can wriggle his way out of that one.

Nozino:
Not according to British law. It is a crime to offer monetary incentives to organ donors. How else should we say this for you to understand?

The money is not illegal until it's proven it was for the purchase of the organ either by receipts, email, texts or recorded conversations. Selling organs is illegal if you can prove it was a trade. If he consented to "donating" his organ, the financial incentive isn't enough to outrightly prove it was a trade because most donors (even family members) get financial aids for the follow-up medical care. As far as the court is concerned, it's all about what can be proven.

And if it was actually a trade, the seller is also liable, so they'd both end up in jail. I'd like to see how he'd navigate that.

1stGenAmerican:
Sir, the boy is not trying to win a case. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, not the boy, and the prosecution isn’t relying on the testimony of a young non-citizen. The prosecution is relying on the evidence that they clearly have gathered. Selling a kidney is illegal and the UK courts no that no young man who has no money to afford the lifelong medical care a kidney donor requires would ever offer to donate a kidney to a non-relative out of kindness.

If the boy is lied about his age and about his consent, he's trying to win a case. If he's accusing the senator of misleading him, the burden of proof also lies on him. If he consented to "donating" his kidney, the financial incentives wouldn't be enough to outrightly prove it was a trade. A ruling was done today based on gathered evidence (contrary to the notion that he was a minor). The best we can do is to wait for the next ruling instead of jumping into conclusions.

You didn't provide the card indicating he's 41.

Nozino:
If it is proven that he was offered financial incentives to “donate” his kidney, your darling criminal senator and his wife will go to jail.


For a child whom you claim was born in the year 2000, why don’t we have his record? This criminal has been in the senate for years . If only he initiated a bill to ensure all Children born in Nigeria have all their information captured, we won’t be here, arguing about his age. For me, I’d wait till there’s an official interview from the young boy. Till then, he is 15 and the senator is a criminal.

You think anyone that has a contrary opinion is siding with the senator? You guys are so emotional.

If a mentally stable adult is given money to donate his kidney, that's not illegal. You don't like the senator and he hasn't done well in terms of record keeping, that's all valid. But all those things have no bearing in this case. The "kid" can remain 15 to you forever, but you are the judge. The court has ruled and that's all that matters. We can now move on to the issue of consent.

I couldn't care less about the senator. I don't stay in Nigeria, I don't even know him. To me, he's just a man in this case and if he's guilty, I pray he rots in jail. If he's not, I don't see why I'd want him to go to jail for a crime he didn't commit just so that a young man could get asylum. That's just logical.

Morphinne:
Exactly. I’m keenly interested in the reason behind his sudden u-turn from the agreement he had with them which took him to the UK in the first place. Was he thinking he was invited there to babysit the sick girl? Why are we Nigerians like this?
I was at a new location in the East sometime last year and a guy offered to help me with direction to where I was going but the Nigerian instinct in me told me he was up to something bad because I didnt believe a Nigerian could help you without a catch
That’s how bad we’re having it now here in Nigeria. To trust ppl now na big deal. What brought about the U-turn?
Disclaimer: I’m definitely not picking sides with anyone but basing my judgement on what we’ve been hearing so far as well as the court’s rejection of the boy’s minor claim.

Exactly, the guy is shady. I understand we don't like our politicians. I couldn't care less about the senator myself. I'm not even sure the UK Court has the jurisdiction to jail him over there. And if they send him back to Nigeria, we all know he'd walk free, guilty or not. Nevertheless, it's only pertinent that the case is judged logically and not emotionally.

Nozino:
Sir, I can guarantee that his asylum request will be granted without a hearing.

Hehe... Nairaland people. You think those doing the hearing get to decide when they want to do so and when they don't? OK, I hear you bro.

Nozino:
Hello, I personally do not care about his age seeing as it doesn’t matter to case.

My BVN reference was because someone uploaded his bvn records here.

For clarity sake, (1) His age doesn’t matter (2) BVN records can easily be manipulated (3) We all know that if the guy did consent, he didn’t do so from the goodness of his heart.

His age matters because we wouldn't even be talking about consent. His age matters cause if he lied about it, it would cast a shadow of doubt on the rest of his story. His age matters cause if he lied about it, it would make his asylum difficult. His age matters cause if he was a minor, it would be considered an entirely different charge from that of consent. His age matters cause if he was actually a minor, you wouldn't be here telling me his age does not matter. How can you say his age doesn't matter in such a case just because it has been debunked?

If there's any evidence the guy consented, I'm sorry, he chances of winning the case would be extremely thin. Relatives apart, many kidney donor all over the world do it for money and not because having one kidney is thier life ambition. It's not illegal. So the "goodness of his heart" part would be a tough one to go by. Even if it stands, I doubt it can fetch the senator a serious punishment.

1stGenAmerican:
Genetic testing can determine his age but the passport given to him by the Senator was altered to list his age as 41. The lawyers refuse to address that or try to debunk it. The UK court seized the passport so the pictures of the passport being shared is obviously fraudulent.

1stGenAmerican:
Genetic testing can determine his age but the passport given to him by the Senator was altered to list his age as 41. The lawyers refuse to address that or try to debunk it. The UK court seized the passport so the pictures of the passport being shared is obviously fraudulent.

This is a different discussion because it doesn't make his story any better if he actually lied that he was a minor. Nevertheless, it's an interesting dimension to the story. If not anything, it'll surely make things worse for the senator. Where did you see the actual passport?

Gemma11:
David has not yet given any statement under oath saying that he is 15.

It could be that he only spoke today under oath and told his real age which is why the Judge ruled in the defence's favour.

Under oath or not, if he lied at any point concerning his age, that would be a huge red flag in his refugee hearing. That's what I'm saying. Him not lying under oath would save him from perjury, true. But if he lied before now, that would be a score against himself.

Nozino:
Sir you’ve answered the question. The ruling can be appeal easily when the fact that BVN information can be updated and changed! With someone as powerful as the criminal senator, how difficult would it be to have the guy’s BVN information updated to reflect whatever he wants? The judge will surely consider this. Besides, this is the least charge the senator has to face.

Bro, you actually want to finish the guy. Do you know what is called perjury? If he is not a minor, the chances of this guy getting jailed for lying are slim at the moment because the lie was done outside the court and he wasn't under oath. The moment he appeals this ruling, he'll be under oath and if found to be lying after that, it'll be considered a perjury in his case against the senator (delibrately lying under oath to mislead the court) and that's a liable offense. Trust me, if he appeals an already ruled part of the case, the next hearing will be intense and he can't wriggle out of that in this century. So except he's 15 and the judge that made this ruling is a drunkard, it'll be in his best interest to leave it the way it is at the moment.

By the way, you keep saying BVN, I have not mentioned any of those documents throughout my chat here. You think the court ruled based on the BVN? If it were that simple, wouldn't it have been an open and close case? Dude, your biometrics can easily tell if you're teenager or a full grown adult. The age disparity between 15 and 21 is too huge to be missed.