Alleged Organ harvest: British law renders age of David and consent irrelevant in Ekweremadu’s defence
It has just been confirmed that David Nwamini Ukpo, the purported victim in the alleged case of organ harvesting being pressed against Senator Ike Ekweremadu and his wife Beatrice in an Uxbridge Magistrate Court in the United Kingdom, is actually 21 years, having been born on October 12, 2000.
That makes him an adult who could give consent and that also contradicts his claim in a formal report to the London Metropolitan Police that he was 15 years (a minor), which is not an age of consent.
Despite that his international passport clearly indicates his official age which describes him as an adult, the fact is irrelevant in the face of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
Besides, consent or lack of it is also irrelevant in human trafficking and organ harvesting.
The law provides that the person that arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (V) with a view to V being exploited, commits an offence.
The UK Modern Slavery law (human trafficking) sentencing describes
this as an either-way offence and on summary conviction is subject to twelve months’ imprisonment and/or unlimited fine.
On conviction on indictment, the maximum sentence is ten years’ imprisonment.
However, where the offence involves false imprisonment or kidnapping, it is life imprisonment.
Specifically, Section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (on human trafficking) provides in:
1. A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (V) with a view to V being exploited.
2. It is irrelevant whether the victim consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or child).
3. A person may in particular arrange or facilitate V’s travel by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V.
4. A person arranges or a person arranges or facilitates V’s travel with a view to V being exploited only if:
a. the person intends to exploit V in any part of the world during or after travel; or
b. the person knows or ought to know that another person is likely to exploit V in any part of the world during or after travel.
5. Travel is defined as:
a. Arriving in, or entering, any country
b. Departing from any country, or
c. Travelling within any country.
6. A person who is a United Kingdom (UK) national commits an offence regardless of where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or where the travel takes place. In other words, this offence may be committed by a UK national anywhere in the world and no matter where V is travelling.
7. A person who is not a UK national commits an offence if any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the UK, or the travel consists of arrival or entry into, departure from, or travel within the UK.
THE CONCLAVE reports that if this is the law that would be deployed in prosecuting the Ekweremadus, then fingers must be crossed to see how the prosecution and defence navigate the provisions of the law’s seeming recondite nature especially as they affect the defendants (Ekweremadus in this instant case).
Hearing in the case has been fixed for July 7 while in the meantime the Ekweremadus are in a detention facility, consequent upon the decision by the court to deny his bail application until then (July 7, 2022)
