₦airaland Forum

IamANigerianMan:
So you believe what PT says, he went to school at the age of 5, he did primary school for 7 years.. This man is not qualifies to lead Nigeria apex court .

What's your own qualification? Let's see if you're even qualified to own a smart phone.

HRprof:
Have they come out to say it was written in error ? if not then there is more to this

Okay sorry it's 41, since we no longer use our common sense again in Nigeria.

HRprof:
So why can't UK tabloid show us evidence or prove of the stated 41 years like other inferior website with clear evidence I'm beginning to smell racist on the UK part I now believe what FFK wrote on this matter. We will see the end , i hope this boy will not come out to apologise with confession if his plan failed.

41 written by the uk tabloid is an error; it should be 21.

When exactly will the educated Nigerian populace be enlightened enough to understand that Wikipedia should never be depended upon as a reliable source of info?

Anybody can log into the wikipedia site and adjust any figure as they please. But Nigerians keep failing to realise this.

HRprof:
Why do some reason through their nose
How did the letter Ekweremadu wrote to embassy in support of the boy purpose of travel became fraudulent
How did the boy passport, NIN and BVN become fraudulent
For people who believe this boy story of 41 years where did they see it because his passport amd the bisa flying on the internet clearly shown 21 years . Did ekweremadu give him another passport after he arrived UK to show to doctor at the hospital

A UK tabloid stated 41 years old for a boy whose passport mentions October 2000 as his DoB. Because a UK tabloid wrote it, it cannot be an error; it must be the correct figure and every other site which quoted 21 years old must be inferior to the UK website.

The above is the exact mindset driving this thread!

aribisala0:
How do you know they made a mistake? It is possible but you are just guessing aren't you? You do not know that do you?

How do I know if it's a mistake?.. Common sense and documentary evidence!

You've seen the picture of the boy's passport all over the internet showing his date of birth as Oct 2000 yet you still wonder if 41 is an error just because it was written by a UK tabloid? Several websites state his acclaimed age as 21 years old, but a UK tabloid writes 41 years as his age. With the info freely available, you're still contemplating if 41 is the right figure?

Let's even assume the boy or the senator are dumb; they want to make a fake passport for the boy to prove he's an adult; do you genuinely think 41 years old is the sort of figure they would concoct for such a young boy? Is it anything you people just see online that you swallow hook line and sinker?

1stGenAmerican:
That’s my point. Only Nigerian sources have this information. Nigerian sources have no bearing since they will be tried in a UK court.
The passport he traveled with is in the possession of the UK courts. This looks like a new passport that was cooked up for damage control. I don’t believe anything coming from Nigerian agencies, especially since I deal with altered Nigerian passports and fraudulent documents on a regular basis.

Let me repeat myself again: the crimes that they’re charged with are not age specific. Even if his true age is discovered to be 21, 31, 41, or 51 it won’t matter because their criminal charges aren’t due to age.

Nobody is arguing with you what the main charge is. The simple point is that dailymail is a tabloid which made a mistake in their '41' figure. but you're too fixated on the fact that it's a UK site to get that point. You believe they cant be wrong because they are a UK site.

Without being told, how do you think it's even sensible for anyone with a brain to want to falsify that boy's passport, and of all the ages they could think of, it's 41 years old for that little boy? This is a common sense issue so I'll speak no more about it. Feel free to believe whatever you want to believe!

1stGenAmerican:
The British court has never released the boy’s identity and they’re in possession of his passport. How are you people able to view and verify? I refuse to accept a bunch of fallacies as fact when I know better. Thank you.

Lol... You know better? The British court are in possession of the boy's passport so therefore, no one else has ever laid eyes on that passport right? Even the circulating images of the passport on the internet are fake cos no one else has ever laid eyes on the passport besides UK court abii no be so?

Ahhh! I even forgot, the dailymail.co.uk tabloid which you gullibly swallow their figures must be equivalent to the British court right?

Besides this dailymail tabloid, can you point out any other media house which has quoted this your bizarre 41 years figure?

Several sites have mentioned 21 years as the age in contention; even Vanguard Nigeria published a snapshot of the boy's passport (shown below) which clearly shows the DoB as Oct 2000. But somehow someway, in the world of 1stGenAmerican, Vanguard Nigeria must be inferior to a UK tabloid called dailymail.co.uk. The words of the almighty UK tabloid must be equivalent to the words of the Uxbridge court; heck! their words must be equivalent to the words of the Her Majesty the Queen.

You know better indeed!

Whoknowsme:
That 41 yrs may be a typographical error

It's utterly disturbing how so many people here cannot apply discretion to figure out that the 41 years old quoted by the Dailymail.co.uk report is an error.

1stGenAmerican:
The UK newspaper used the statements of officials. Tell me why the lawyers haven’t disproved or challenged the information?

1001 different media houses and blogs post a story. One of them in the UK somehow mixes its figures by quoting that a person born in the October 2000 is 41 years old, instead of 21 years, and your suggestion is that lawyers should leave all the reasonable things they have to do with their lives to start chasing about one inconsequential media house to make an irrelevant correction? You must really think the lawyers are jobless dont you?

So because a newspaper based in the 'Almighty UK' quotes 41 years old, even after sighting the publicly available documents which show his DoB as October 2000, you cannot apply your discretion to deduce that it should be 21 (which is even the figure every other site has reported)? Amazing amazing!!!

Opperwezen:
This news article is misleading, his official age based on numerous supporting documents is 21, how did he manage to escape British immigration with the supposed "41 yr old fake passport".

OP post another source or an official statement from Met police, you can't mislead us, news editors make mistakes everytime it's not a new thing. I wouldn't be surprised if a 2 miraculously became a 4 for shock value.

I had this very argument with someone on this forum this morning that the quoted age of 41 was obviously a mistake by Dailymail.co.uk but I was told off.

All other reports before the dailymail report clearly quoted 21 years old; the boy's passport and BVN document clearly stated 2000 as year of birth. But somehow, when I said dailymail made a mistake, I was told off cos apparently, a UK newspaper cannot make a mistake.

Doubleoh7:
The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission is threatening a jail term of 15 years for landlords that give their properties in rent to yahoo boys. In a message from their official twitter handle, inviting the public to their next EFCC Connect, an open forum where they discuss with the members of the public, the message reads;

Okay now! What a juicy topic! E go sweet wella! Landlord way yahoo-boy dey stay for him house, my people, na 15 years imprisonment for the landlord o! E don set!
See the details of the public forum below, for landlords that will want to attend. Let's see how they intend to prosecute this and send landlords to jail for 15 years.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0seWDmmErKXYGqZYJxNtuC69ybeUHu2rwAdhKXn68ysgFmDonBz2jXXx8pYotsvGTl&id=100064596373289

Lol... Sounds like a dumb move... Is EFCC trying to leave their job for landlords?

1stGenAmerican:
It’s not a typo. It’s not an error. Their lawyers won’t dare to address it.

Lol... she still insists. How can someone born in 2000 be 41 years old? Please make it make sense?

1stGenAmerican:
The crimes they’re charged with aren’t age specific so what weight does the information you’re giving hold?

Just clarifying a wrong info. Nothing wrong with that.

You said he was 41, and I told you 41 was an error from a particular UK newspaper report. I also saw the report you saw which stated he was 41 and I just laughed at the error. But even after pointing it out to you, you somehow insisted that 41 was correct and that got me confused.

1stGenAmerican:
It’s not an error. Ultimately, his age is not a factor. Again, the crime they’re being charged with isn’t age specific.

Lol... Despite every other site quoting 21, and with copies of his passport are all over the place showing 2000 as the year of birth, since you insist the 41 isnt an error from that particular UK newspaper, is it even logical for anyone to claim that that boy is 41?

1stGenAmerican:
No it’s not a mistake. They mentioned 41 several times.

Pictures of the boys passport are all over the place. Several media houses have mentioned it as 21. Why exactly do you suddenly think its 41 because 1 out of numerous UK newspapers erroneously typed 41?

CheapHomes1:
You haven't answered the question.

Is going to jail in the UK part of what he achieved for himself?

Simple yes or no

If you do not know the meaning of 'achievemnet', Obailala isnt the one to teash you that. Go back to your primary school, or better still, enroll in an adult class.

1stGenAmerican:
The passport that the UK confiscated says 41.

Passport said 21. The 41 was obviously an error from the uk website.

CheapHomes1:
You haven't answered the question.

Is going to jail in the UK part of what he achieved for himself?

Anyone can sit in their holes and talk down on others courtesy of cheap internet these days; talk is cheap! You or anyone in your entire family or village, go and become a house of assembly member make we see.

CheapHomes1:
Where you there? This is from the charges filed:

Did you read what I wrote at all?...

Ddworld:
Mr. Data,

So sad you lack basic reasoning. The passport showing the boy's age at 21 is enough reason to left the man off the hook except the document is being forged. This can be verified easily at the immigration office without sueing them.

Information that can be gotten easily why then sue them? Calling them to appear as witness is totally from sueing them. Why sue them?

I can understand your lack but this desperation is totally rubbish. You need to develop your brain. It will definitely help you.

Infact this sue will be more interesting because I am only interested in his birth certificate and maybe everything will be clearer. I believed all this beating around around the bush by his big coat lawyers is to his the fact that Ekweremadu helped that boy to get his P. Till then, try to always learn

Someone with zero iq is asking me to go and learn. Smh!

Funflipper:
Besides the age, wasn't he induced to give up his kidney? Ekweremadu is done!

Let's watch and see how they woukd prove that. Let's watch and see how they would charge him for an act which happened in Nigeria, and which isnt against any known Nigerian laws

addictiv:
I just saw another letter online where he said David was going to donate his kidney. However he also stated that he will be providing funding for the expenses. Which makes him guilty of this charge....

Conspiracy to arrange and/or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to exploitation

Do you know the meaning of the word exploitation?

Someone willingly offers to donate a kidney to my ailing child; I gladly offer to pay for all medical expenses and flight tickets. Is that what you call exploitation?

What a laughable logic!

BigIyanga:
Lol.. blocked head argument. Crime was about to be committed on UK soil. It was plotted and to be executed on their land. The law is charging you for the INTENTION to commit a crime before it happens.. Their case is too egregious that Ibori and Alamaseigha were considered less evil and granted bail lol

Let's watch and see who the blocked heads really are.

Ddworld:
Wait. It's either you are deluded like the lawyers or just plain stupid.

Dragging bank and other agencies is pointless. No need to drag this further. July 1st is here already. Come back and continue your blabbing.

Maybe it is the bank that gave birth to the boy. Till then, we will know who is more folly between you or his lawyers.

If you happens to be a lawyer. I will guarantee you it will be a miracle for you to win a case. If someone is accused of falsifying age, is it the bank's fault? You are indeed a lawyer. Very DAFT

Wondeeful! Ddworld is the smartest brain in town, everyone else is daft and stupid. You should be clapping for yourself!

Someone tells me they are 21 and they show me a national ID card and passport which confirms their age as 21. If peradventure it turns out to be that their age was falsified in those original national documents, I cannot legally be held responsible if I had permitted them into an establishment which allows only patrons that are 21+. If I am dragged by the authorities, I will simply cite the national documents they provided as my main defence and direct the court to the passport and ID issuing agencies.

The above is common sense, but unfortunately, you dont seem to possess the basic IQ to grasp the logic behind dragging the bank and NIS and NIMC into this case. No point explaining to you further cos if you dont still get it, you wouldnt get it in a million years. Keep insulting, everyone's a dunce except you... Goodnight

Funflipper:
Besides the age, wasn't he induced to give up his kidney? Ekweremadu is done!

The burden of proof will be on the prosecution. Besides, Nigeria doesnt have any law against payment for organ donation. So it would be interesting to see how a Nigerian living in Nigeria would be charged under UK law for an act which was done in Nigerian and which is not illegal in Nigeria.

BigIyanga:
Beer parlor argument no dey work. He wrote to the embassy. he paid for everything. He’s a senator and ex deputy senate president. He wields so much power and influence. He’s a lion in this case and the boy is sheep. A sheep is of no threat to a lion.

Whatever the case, it's unlikely he will be convicted in the UK for this.

BigIyanga:
You’re the deluded person here. The law is looking at the intent of the act.. They could have falsified his age since the sole purpose of that his passport was to harvest his organs. His WAEC/JAMB/NECO records will show accurate age. DNA will do better than a pasaport procured by the 5th most powerful man in Naija.

This case is about trying to obtain his organ rhru deceit and monetary inducement. Period

As long as it's proven that he isnt a minor, case is closed!

Even if its proven that the boy is a minor, Ekweremmadu can easily claim he wasnt aware the boy had falsified age on his documents. That's probably the reason his lawyers have dragged in the NIS, NIMC and bank to come and defend themselves too for conniving with the boy to falsify his age. Once it's established that all official documentation shows the boy's age as an adult, Ekweremmadu cannot be held responsible for deceiving a minor - again, case is closed.

addictiv:
1. First go and find out what the UK law defines as exploitation.
2. In the letter ekweremadu only stated David is going for a private medical treatment not to donate his kidney. He didn't fully disclose the reason for his travel which already makes him look culpable in the eyes of the law.

Are you sure you read the letter?

BigIyanga:
They’re just like you. This case is not about age. It’s about not obtaining the guy’s consent to harvest his organ.

Harvest which organ? Was it the senator himself that was going to pin him down and slice open his belly to rip out his organ?

The boy isnt an infant, so therefore, just right before the surgery begins, the doctors would brief the boy on what the procedure was about, giving him the full right to opt out if he wasnt happy to continue. How exactly could the Ekweremadus have forced him at that point?

The only case here is his age. If he's a minor, then it can be said that he isnt old enough to sign a consent form at the hospital (so the Ekweremadusmay be accused of exploiting the naivety of a minor). But once it's proven that he isnt a minor, that's the end of the case.

BigIyanga:
Written agreement btw him and ekweremadus.
Agreement that he was fully briefed, he acted under no influence, force, intimidation, and no monetary benefits were offered /promised by Ekweremadus.

What exactly is the evidence that he was forced by the Ekweremadus to board a plane and travel to the UK?

Regarding consent for the surgery, he was free to opt out any time he wanted, even at the point where he was already on the surgery bed; the Ekweremadus couldn't have forced him to undergo the surgery and he is an adult old enough to opt in or opt out any time he wanted. So what exactly is the difference the paper agreement would have made?

Ddworld:
Are you listening to yourself? Shifting blame to who? Did you know how the immigration works? They ask you for documentations. Kindly note they don't documentation that is not their job. You will be attended to based on the information provided. Likewise the bank and Nimc.

The culprit here is the birth certificate and the person who issued it. So, in regards to his lawyers, they are once again a team of deluded humans.


Being 21 or no 21 is another case entirely for the arrested culprits

Apologies but you're actually the one who's deluded here. Take it easy with your bullets, you might just be shooting yourself. Obviously you aren't a lawyer so it isnt your fault that the simple strategy seems outlandish to you.

A man was accused of trying to exploit a minor
His lawyers are trying to get a him off the hook by dragging in different parties to come and testify from their records that the boy isnt a minor. If it's proven that the boy is lying about his age (i.e. if its proven he isnt a minor), the case already favours the senator. But you think the lawyers are daft?