The tragedy that befell the Ekeweremadus is such that no family should experience, particularly while trying to save another member of the family from a life-threatening ill-health. Most parents - if not all, many have argued, would stop at nothing to save the life of a child. However, there is a limit to the foregoing sentiments. There is the place of the law and how it regulates and limits the conduct of anyone faced with a life-threatening challenge such as was faced by the Ekweremadus’ daughter. Sadly, in their desperation for a solution to their challenge, the Ekweremadus broke the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (MSA 2015) of the United Kingdom (UK) – a law enacted to combat modern slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour, human and organ trafficking, and for the protection of victims of such crimes.
Yesterday, Friday 5 May 2023, the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in London sentenced Mr Ike Ekweremadu, his wife – Beatrice, and the ‘middleman’ medical doctor – Dr Obinna Obita, to various terms of imprisonment ranging from 6 to 10 years. In passing his sentencing on each of the defendants, Mr Justice Johnson stated thus: “In each of your cases the offence you committed is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified...” And in relation to the victim of the crime, Mr Johnson also stated that: “…He would have faced spending the rest of his life with only one kidney and without requisite funding for the required aftercare.” The criminal trial culminating in the sentencing of Mr Ike Ekweremadu, his wife, and the ‘middleman’ medical doctor began almost a year ago, not long after their arrest in May 2022. They were all charged with conspiracy to arrange or facilitate the travel of another person with a view to exploitation - harvesting his organ. They were subsequently found guilty and convicted by a jury on 23 March 2023. Expectedly, the trial and subsequent conviction of the Ekweremadus provoked mixed reactions in Nigerian and beyond.
Whilst the criminal proceedings lasted at the Old Bailey Court, one of the ironies in the Ekeweremadus’ case which was clearly lost on the Nigerian pity party was the fact that while they tried so hard to play the Nigerian “big men” card pouring pressures on the British court and government for clemency, it was in fact the same ‘big man’ status of Mr Ike Ekeweremadu that must have worsened his case before the court. This irony was alluded to by the prosecutor when he noted that given his status and education (lawyer), Mr Ike Ekweremadu ought to have known better and considered himself a role model in the society. Mr Justice Johnson also alluded to this fact in his sentencing when he harped on the standing of Mr Ike Ikweremadu in the society and concluded that “this represents a substantial fall from grace for you.” Could anything be furthered from this self-evident truth? The British system, albeit not without her own corrupt practices, but unlike the brazenly corrupt Nigerian system, does not pity any ‘big man or woman’ caught in a criminal act. So, the strict rule generally is, “don’t get caught.” Although Mr Justice Johnson acknowledged that the plea (letters) for clemency represented a “substantial mitigating factor” in his consideration of appropriate sentencing, he nonetheless concluded that “…the offence you committed is so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified...”
But in their unreflective resort to crude sentiments, the Nigerian pity party did not appear to have spared some thoughts for the less fortunate “victim survivor” of the Ekweremadus’ crime. The “victim survivor,” as the unnamed Lagos street-trader was described by the Prosecutor, was crudely treated by the Ekweremadus as a “disposable asset” and a “commodity to be bought and sold” in a trade that is targeted at the poor in their vulnerabilities. Unfortunately, the pity party simply carried on as if the case was all about the Ekweremadus and the life of their daughter. Yet, regardless of his age or motive or the allegation that he was a willing dealer in the planned harvesting of his organ, the “victim survivor” too is someone else’s child, and the life of the fortunate daughter of the Ekweremadus is not worth more than the life of the less fortunate “victim survivor.” All lives matter and are equal as the Old Bailey Court has now affirmed.
Clearly, the ordeal of the Ekweremadus in the UK vis-à-vis Nigeria could help to highlight a tale of two countries. One (Nigeria), where the law applies differently to the poor and the rich, the low and the high, and, in fact, protects the rich and punishes the poor. The other (Britain), where the law applies equally to the poor and the rich and, in fact, punishes the rich and the high to set clear warnings and good examples for all. To be clear, the ‘big men and women’ in Britain do also enjoy what one may call the elite-priviledge. However, once they are caught for any criminal act or infraction, the law does not discriminate in applying its full weight as may be appropriate. The case of the Ekweremadus was the first of its kind since the Parliament passed the MSA 2015, and it was very clear the British government was not willing to set a bad precedent to start with. Were the Ekweremadus to be facing similar criminal charges in Nigeria, their trial and conviction would have been a tall dream. Would the case have moved beyond some shoddy investigation and/or trial?
On a related point, I have read many people state that the President or the Nigerian State ought to have applied some diplomatic pressures to stall or terminate the trial of the Ekeremadus in the first place. While this may not entirely be a wrong call, the diplomatic practicality of it is arguable. Definitely, a diplomatic intervention in such a highly sensitive criminal case cannot be done with funfair. Worse, those who make such calls do it mainly because it is the Ekeweremadus and not necessarily because of any noble or nuanced basis. Many have also queried whether the British or American government would have allowed a prominent British MP or an American Senator to undergo such a trial in Nigeria. Well, as there is no record of any British MP or US Senator having ever been arrested or detained or put on trial for committing any crime in Nigeria, we may have to wait till such a time to see the reactions of their governments and ours. Regardless, it is a fact that there are convicted foreigners, including full blooded Britons, serving jail terms in the Nigerian correctional facilities. So, why should the case of the Ekeremadus be different simply because they are the Ekeremadus?
Finally, the unfortunate tragedy of the Ekweremadus should serve a great lesson to African political elites who steal and amass public funds that could have been used to build and develop their countries. As things stand now, these political elites are neither save at home nor abroad. While one may not speculate over the myriads of criminal allegations against Mr Ike Ekweremadu, it is safe to say that his current ordeal should provoke a positive change of minds and actions within the Nigerian political class. It is not too late now to stop stealing public funds and to start developing Nigeria. And for the Ekweremadus, it is hoped that Sonia will find comfort and heal soon. Also, should the Ekweremadus wish to serve their prison terms in Nigeria, there is a 2014 UK-Nigerian Prisoners Transfer Agreement. Under the agreement, Nigerians who commit crimes in the United Kingdom, and Britons who commit crimes in Nigeria, are allowed to serve their sentences in their own country, where they can be properly prepared for release into the community in which they will live following their release. Although Mr Ike Ekweremadu had preferred a British hospital to the Nigerian hospitals for the kidney transplant of his daughter, would he now prefer the Nigerian correctional facilities (prisons) to the British ones?
Misbau Alamu Lateef, PhD.