Faber:


Go sleep, UK is gone. Scotland will soon leave. Australia is planning to become a republic like US.

The Commonwealth will crumble

The Australian referendum suggest they want to keep the monarchy and they have already proclaimed Charles III as their new King

Canada have also proclaimed the new King.

Ditto with New Zealand and the rest of the states where Charles III will take over from his mother as the New Head of State which are Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, and Tuvalu.

The Commonwealth is not the same as the above. It consists of 54 countries and some of them were not even former British colonies. Please note that the Commonwealth is a voluntary membership and no one is forced to join and one can leave at any time so if it wanted to crumble it. would have done so long ago

GreyLaw:


Britain and France are also allies. The reason France isn't doing so (even though the commiserated with the British) is because France actually had issues with monarchy. Remember they killed their royals and beheaded them in the market place.

The lights of the Eiffel Tower in Paris France were put on to show respect.

Faithful007:
White Americans were mostly European and Middle Eastern descents. Not necessarily British. Your claim of 90 percent US president being from British Royalty is also false. The War of Independence was not a Civil war. The British colonialists signed what is referred to as the Paris treaty and redrew the boundaries of British North America, holding the part which is Canada today.

If you look at the surnames of around 80% of Americans you'll see that they are of British origin. Common names are Smith, Johnson, Brown, Miller,Wilson, Martin, Adams, Jones etc...all British.

Also read this article in regards to US Presidents.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

The American Revolution (War of Independence) was considered a Civil War as it was British who had settled in the US, fighting the against the British Government who were still taxing them but refusing to represent them in UK parliament.
https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution
Direct quote from the article:
"Until early in 1778 the conflict was a civil war within the British Empire"

After the was the declaration of Indepedence in 1776 was signed by 56 men who all had very recent British ancestry even though most were born in America but some were also born in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

The US constitution and Bill of Rights which is very much alive today is also based on the English Magna Carta from 1215

The 1st US President, George Washington is off English origin.

After the war of indepedence, the 13 British colonies New England (New Hampshire; Massachusetts; Rhode Island; Connecticut); Middle (New York; New Jersey; Pennsylvania; Delaware); Southern (Maryland; Virginia; North Carolina; South Carolina; and Georgia became the first part of th US...It was after that other parts of what we now now as America were added like the French and Spanish States like New Orleans, texas and the West Coast etc.

sorepco:
Britain did nit benefit half of the resources from the USA it stole from from Africa....

America had nothing to pillage from like the UK did from Africa or India....note also that America did nit experience same brutality meted to it like the UK did to Africa and India!

America & UK are one and the same. The US Declaration of indepedence of 1776 was actually signed by men of British descent and at least 90% of every US President is directly descended from a British King.

Experts argue that the War of Independence was actually more of a civil war. Even the American National Anthem is written to the tune of an old British drinking song.

Key places in America are also named after British Monarchs,..i.e Georgia,(King George II), Maryland (Queen Mary) Virginia (Elizabeth I, known as the Virgin Queen), North & South Carolina (Named after King Charles I)

sirSixtus:



Bro with all due respect, ehh Madonna would tell you not to compare her to MJ make I boost your bubble, MJ Is in the top 15 most influential, popular and best human to step foot on earth...

Call MJ with people like Albert Einstein, Alexander the great, Pope Pius, Hitler bro you see these caliber na people way you go dey call where MJ dey

My Dear Sister..First of all stop comparing men with women. Also if you have any knowledge about music stats, pop culture history, achievements and sales, you would know that Madonna and MJ are peers and indeed comparable. It doesn't matter what Madonna or you says. These are the facts not opinion. Michael knew himself that Madonna was the only one who could compete with him which is why he associated with her. You never even saw After MJ had released Thriller, you never even saw him photographed with his own siblings, but he was with Madonna.

It is only when Madonna passes away that people will understand what this lady was to pop music. Right now you young ones are just being disrespectful to her legacy. This is how they laughed at MJ and Whitney when they were alive but immediately after their deaths they were finally given the respect they deserved.

Madonna is the Queen of POP music. MJ is the King of POP Music...The End.

hermesprogidy:

Madonna is white. MJ was black. MJ revolutionized video creation for the entire music industry, MJ put black musicians on the map and forced racist companies like MTV to start playing videos of black artistes. Do you see where am going here? Sometimes, it's not about the money. MJ is like the Martin Luther King of music. Mic drop....

MJ is a man and while he is also black, he didn’t have to deal with a misogynist music industry like Madonna had to so there are are different factors at play here.

Madonna being white did not stop her from being homeless and eating from trash cans in New York age 19, did not stop her from posing nude for $10 as a teenager so she could eat. It did not stop her from being blacklisted by the music industry, did not stop her being banned by the Vatican and MTV. All of these things happened to her and more but she still persevered to become the highest selling female artist of all time who is now worth over $850 million.

Madonna pushed boundaries in music like no other and this is why the likes of Beyoncé, Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Ariana Grande etc can do what they do in music, on stage, in videos. Madonna is the blueprint.

Also Madonna’s videos were more, revolutionary, and controversial than MJ’s and changed the industry. Videos like Papa don’t Preach, Like a Prayer and Vogue are more groundbreaking and thought provoking than Thriller or anything than MJ has put out because they addressed real life social issues, racism and religion which no other music star had the guts to do at the time.

As I said, MJ had his female counterpart and that was Madonna, Queen of Pop.

sirSixtus:


Madonna is great sir, but calling her where you call MJ and DaVinci is an insult she no near.

hermesprogidy:

Comparable to MJ? I think not

Haha...they are indeed comparable.

MJ is the King of pop with 13 no.1s and 27 top10s on Billboard. He is also has the biggest selling album of all time.

Madonna is the Queen of pop with 12 no 1s and 38 top 10s on Billboard. She is the biggest selling female artist of all time and just one of her world tours grossed over $500 million and holds the record for the highest for a female. None of Michael Jacksons tour did not gross that much.

Madonna also tops the charts as the artist (Male or Female) with the most number 1s around the world.

Madonna is also the bluprint for the modern female pop star. Everything you see women in pop doing today, from merging the high fashion world with pop music, the stage extravaganzas and performances, ground breaking videos etc...Madonna was the first woman in music to do that

barag:


She was granted bail. This doesn't mean the charges have been dropped against her, it only means she would no longer be in custody. She would and come from home whenever the case comes up in court.

Yes she probably surrendered her passport, has to wear a tag so that they can monitor her movements to see if she goes outside of two miles of her house, has a curfew and has to sign the register at the local police station every day. Life no balance o.

Lexusgs430:



É be like say you wan make Ike chop beans ......... Imagine eating yam and beans, in the abroad........

Aldi Baked beans and toast sweet small sha

Lexusgs430:



Don't you give people money, out of pity ........ And not taking a shine at their kidney or snail...........

Yeah I can give someone tp to 100k if I feel they are really in dire straits...I would not pay N100k visa fees + N300k flights to London..Plus put accomodate you in my house for free with free food. Would you? Even relatives that come to stay with me na only 1 week max I dey allow.

Ekweremadu clearly wanted something from the guy..has already incriminated himself by that letter to the embassy online. Please note that while the letter is confirmed to have come from Ekweremadu's office, it is has not been confirmed as received by the UK Embassy...so the letter which shows his intentions plus the payment of the flights, visa, free accomodation and even the payment to the Royal Free Hospital for David's check-ups incriminates him

Lexusgs430:



Imagine Ike making a payment of ₦1,000,000, into David's account......... It would make his conviction, very easy ........

A promise of good life, would involve lots of legal arguments and would not to be tested well .......

Even paying for the flights, visa fees and free accomodation and food in London would count as incentives as realistically there is no reason for anyone to do that for a complete stranger without something in return.

plusfield:
UK and their subtle racist attitudes. I can bet that there may be other white doctors who may have attended to the Ekweremadus in the process, but if by chance there is a Nigerian amongst them (even if he has lived and practiced in the UK all his life), they will find a way to single him out and rope him into the accusation. That's how they do.

I understand what you are saying and you made some good points but I don’t believe this is a case of racism. Don’t forget that the victim is also a Nigerian… also the police must have solid evidence against the prisoners as someone of Ekweremadu’s status could sue them heavily if these charges don’t stick.
I checked for this Obinna Obeta’s name on the GMC (Uk Doc registry) and his name is not there so I wonder if he really is a Doctor or just not registered in the UK.

kenchop:
YET NO BRITISH HAS ASKED HER TO GO BACK TO HER BIRTH COUNTRY TO CONTEST, NO ONE HAS ATTACKED HER FOR NOT SUPPORTING A WHITE BRITISH. NO ONE HAS TOLD HER THAT BRITAIN MADE HER WHAT SHE IS SO SHE SHOULD BE LOYAL TO A WHITE BRITISH. THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND OR OTHER ROYALS HAVEN'T THREATENED TO DROWN HER & HER TRIBES MEN IN THE LAKE. BUT IN LAGOS ITS MESS UPON MESS. THE HYPOCRISY STINKS.

Her Birth country is UK.

etrange:


You're seeing it from the perspective of David's legal rights. He has the right to change his mind at any point. I'm seeing from the perspective of David's intentions. If he planned this all out, then there's no other way to put it other than to say he exploited the senator's situation. Both were desperate. The senator probably wanted to exploit his desperation but the hunter became the hunted. However, this does not somehow make it right. He might get away with it, but if he were my friend, I'd be wary of him. It takes a strong mind to make such moves not withstanding the life at stake.

That's if he lied.

How would an unexposed, not highly educated, never left Nigeria before 21 year old have the knowhow to exploit one of the top Nigerian Senator's situation? How many of us even knew about his sick daugher before this whole debacle?
And why are David's intentions being questioned when everyone knows that a lot of young people in Nigeria are looking to Japa? Why are David's intentions to accept a proposed job offer in the UK, with flight, visa and all expenses paid seen as sinister and not normal for any adventurous 21 year old with a dream?

etrange:


So at that point, it was already obvious the operation had failed. Could it be that he wouldn't get the full package if things didn't go as planned? Maybe they agreed he'd still get paid regardless of how it goes but he'd have to return to Nigeria if it didn't go well? Would that be motive enough? At this point, we can only speculate but I'm not closing my eyes to the possibility of premeditated plan to exploit the senator's daughter's sickness. Both parties were desperate.

I don't why these other guys don't see anything wrong with the guy deliberately exploiting another human beings terminal illness. Regardless of how much they dislike the senator, it does not make it right. It's really not about the senator, it could be anyone.

The only exploitation here is the from the Ekweremadu's camp.

David is not responsible for the daughter's illness
David would have no knowledge of the daughter's illness if not for the Ekweremadu's recruiting him into this mess
David did not purchase his own ticket to the UK
David did not book himself into the Royal Free Hospital
David did not apply for a visa to the UK
David has a right to say no at any time, regardless of if consent was previously given.
David is a human being whose his life matters
David has a right to keep both of his God Given Kidneys
David's life is worth no less than the Ekweremadu's daughter
David, just like the Ekweremadu's twenty something year old children, is also somebody's child.
David is a victim

Again there is a reason why he was desperate enough to report his predicament to the Police, instead of going underground and hustling like most Nigerians who find themselves in the UK without papers if he really wanted to stay in the country. Exposing yourself to the authorities who have the power to put you back on the next thing smoking back to Lagos doesn't tally up with your assessment

As for the Ekweremadu's camp...

Who has access to David's personal documents and is plastering online because it is certainly not David and that is another form of exploitation as there is no reason for another unrelated adult to be in possession of the personal data and documents of another.

Nozino:
There are thousands of people in need of vital organs living in the UK. These people do not go to Africa to bring disadvantaged youths to the UK to harvest their organs. If they did, it will be illegal.

Ekeremadu’s daughter, who lives in the UK and got sick and needed a kidney, she was already on the donor list and has more than enough to cover dialysis for 100years if it comes to that, but the criminal senator decided it was better to trafficked an uneducated, disadvantaged youth to get his organ harvested.

I do not care if the guy consent or not. It is morally and legally wrong to buy Human organs. The law was made to protect the vulnerable; you and me. Why some Nigerians are against this guy for going “against “ their agreement is beyond me. People like the senator continuously keep us in poverty, basic amenities are beyond our reach so they can keep exploiting us for their selfish needs. They steal our collective resources, now they want to start taking our vital organs. Why do people try to normalize this nonsense?

It is very scary.
Even our lawless country of Nigeria has a law against organ harvesting but as with most things, enforcing it has has been challenging. It is also extremely concerning that a lot of Nigerians are justifying selling of organs..even so called professionals on TV without even knowing the law of their own land. The other day on facebook, someone told me that only uncivilized countries don't allow organs to be sold...the whole country needs an educational overhaul because this is embarassing.

The Nigerian Law below:
https://leadership.ng/organ-harvesting-knowing-what-nigerian-law-says/

.....in 2015, the Nigerian government passed into law, the Trafficking in Persons Prohibition, Enforcement and Administrative Act, which deals on the issue of human trafficking.

.... the law states that any person who through force, deception, threat, debt bondage or any form of coercion, abuses a position of power or situation of dominance or authority arising from a given circumstance or abuses a vulnerable situation or through the giving or receiving of payments or benefits in order to induce or obtain the consent of a person directly or through another person who has control over him enlists, transport delivers, accommodates or takes in another person for the purpose of removing the person’s organs, commits an offence and is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and a fine of not less than N5,000,000.00.

Section 20 (2) of the law states that, without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person who procures or offers a person, assists or is involved in any way in the removal of human organs or buying and selling of human organs, commits an offence and is liable on conviction imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and to a fine of not less than N 5,000,000.

“Section 20 (3) also states that any person who enlists, transports, delivers, accommodates or takes in another person under the age of 18 years for the purpose of removing the person’s organs, commits an offence and is liable of conviction to imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and a fine of not less than N5,000,000.00.”

Ike Ekweremadu as one of Nigeria's top lawyers should have been aware of the above at least as well as the fact that even though it may not be enforced in Nigeria, it is taken seriously in other countries he plans to visit. He is very lucky he got caught in the UK sha as I believe that the legal system can be quite lenient here in that that they offer ligher sentences. Had he been caught in the US, him and wifey would possibly be looking at 20 years without the possibility of Parole for at least 10.

etrange:


@bolded, reporting to the authorities at that point offers him the possibility of staying in the UK without sacrificing any part of his body. You don't think that's motive enough?

He reported himself to the authorities after the operation had already been cancelled and he had already left the Ekweremadu house...so at that point there was no danger of organs being removed....not like any UK Doctor would risk their licence to do such a thing without following full protocal and getting full direct and signed consent with witnesses from the proposed donor anyway.

So I maintain the situation for him must have been very desperate.

etrange:


Your point is appreciated. The senator could go to hell for I care. But the guy in question could have planned this out. He could have decided to work against thier agreement on getting there because he knew he'd be in a better position any way.

Point taken.

But I am off the mind that the guy would have been in a really desperate frustrating situation because why report yourself to the police if the goal was to stay in the UK? I know of a few Nigerians who find themselves in the UK who happily hustle until they are able to get their papers regularised. I have an Uncle and know of a few others who have been here for years living like this as their intention is not to set foot in Nigeria again until they get themselves sorted. In fact that my Uncle, has even gotten married (only traditionally, not registered) and had kids during the time he has been illegal in the UK and he earns money cash in hand and has full sole use of another relatives dormant account for handling his money.

In the case of David, the first thing the Police would do would be to call immigration and get him sent back home to Nigeria...but instead an investigation was launched on the basis of the report so the evidence must have been damming for the Ekweremadus.

Also, les we forget..21 na still small pickin o and there is not much difference in the brain and rationale from that of a teenager. I believe the Ekweremadus have children around the same age of David who they would like to seek their authority over something as major as giving away an organ.

etrange:


The point I made is, if there's pure cash transfer, it would be harder to proof he didn't consent to the transaction as he's claiming. He could still be lying. As a law you student, I didn't think you'd gladly join social media judges to rule out that possibility.

Previous law student...

My point is consent is irrelevant as clearly stated in the MSA 2015 Act.

The facts are David is currently present in the UK and was here for a donor investigation with a view to illegally having his organ removed on the orders of the Ekweremadus. This is is why they were refused bail.

Again this case is Crown Vs Ekweremadu as in the Queen (Head of State) vs Ekweremadu and not Ukpo Vs Ekweremadu.

The Boy is not on trial here whether he lied or not. It has already been established by the UK Prosecutor and the UK Attorney General that a crime against the state has been committed on UK soil and the case has been deemed serious enough to be tried at the Central Criminal Court.

etrange:



When I say the boy might also be lying, it doesn't necessarily mean the senator is not guilty. I'm not defending the senator, I'm saying there's a possibility the boy is not being truthful himself. Like you said, the law is complex indeed. That's why we can't decisively say what the outcome would be. The whole idea here is proving that it was "human trafficking" especially given the fact that genuine donor would still go through a similar process.

The Boy may be lying but some facts have already been established which indicate the the Senator is guilty.

Namely:
The Boy is a Nigerian citizen
First entered the UK in Feb 2022
The Senator was responsible for all expenses relating to the trip
The Boy was going to for Tests at the private wing (would not have been NHS) of the Royal Free hospital - Bills paid for by the Senator
The letter floating around by the Senator is also an admission of guilt
The Senator has told his people that the boy wasn't a match hence the operation was stopped and he wanted to send him back to Nigeria...this itself is an admission of guilt as it breaches the point 1-7 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

I could go on but I don tire

etrange:


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?

Will the flight to the UK, the free accomodation & Food can all be deemed as incentives in the UK Courts. It doesn't have to be a pure cash transfer.

Human Tissue Act 2004 section 32 or 33

Nozino:



Thank you sir.

I am a Madame...but you're welcome

etrange:


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.

The UK Law is complex...

This is what the MSA 2015 also says about consent

It is irrelevant whether the victim consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or child)
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/modern-slavery-human-trafficking-and-smuggling?fbclid=IwAR3RY4i3TnMvQyWis2AFPpGVwqM2Bwl55uGeCYrrE7KYJZbcSprrOVq_keQ

Bottom line, One is not allowed to bring anyone into the UK for the purposes of organ donation, whether that person consented to or not...end of story.

Donar Visa's are specifically issued only to family members or close unrelated indivuals to the recipient only after a match has been identified by a qualified specialist who is familiar with the donar recipient and can confirm (after seeing tests results) that the Donar is indeed a match. No 'Ifs' or 'Buts'

Ayed44:
He stated it clearly in the letter that the boy was going to donate an organ to his daughter. He didn't make it secret. Read the letter here.

With your choice of words, I know u don't like him, but let the truth be the truth.

When the Trial proceeds on the 4th of August, we will finally know if the British Embassy actually received this letter and if they did, why was a Donar visa offered on the Senator's say so when it is clear that David did not meet the criteria for such a visa because:
1. He is not a family member
2. He is not a close friend or spouse of the recipient
3. There was no supporting letter from a Doctor stating preliminary checks had been done on David in Nigeria to see if he was a match and

etrange:


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.

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

etrange:


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.

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 lure 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 any price.

The law serves a levelling ground for all regardless of wealth of the individual. Nobody wants to live in a world where poor people are reduced to just bodies of spare parts for rich people to buy at will. Do you? What would become of humanity if the selling of Body parts was allowed freely?

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?

Dem no dey hear. All over the internet many Nigerians are ignorantly and proudly arguing that it is not a crime to buy organs.... I tire. I just hope Our honourable Learned Senator & Wife are NOT proudly stating the same thing in a UK Court sha.

Again for the ones in the back:

Legislation
Human Trafficking - Section 2 Modern Slavery Act 2015
A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (V) with a view to V being exploited.
It is irrelevant whether the victim consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or child).
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.
A person arranges or a person arranges or facilitates V's travel with a view to V being exploited only if:
the person intends to exploit V in any part of the world during or after travel; or
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.
Travel is defined as:
Arriving in, or entering, any country
Departing from any country, or
Travelling within any country.
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.
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.

Meaning of Exploitation:

Removal of organs in circumstances where a person is encouraged required or expected to do anything which involves the commission of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in organs and restrictions on use of live donors) as it has effect in England and Wales, or which would involve the commission of such an offence if it took place in England and Wales (section 3(4)).

Na wa

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.

Exactly, it is not Ekweremadu Vs UKpo...it is not a civil case.

It is R (Crown) Vs Ekweremadu...a criminal case

etrange:


If he lied under oath, he'd face legal charges for sure cause that would be perjury. However, regardless of whether he lied under oath or not, if he lied at all, passing the refugee hearing would still be a tough call. How do you think Asylum works? You just beg them and they'll give you? Have you ever been to a refugee hearing or spoken to anyone who has? If it's on record that he lied about his age (in or out if court), he'll have a hard time navigating that during his hearing. Those guys will scrutinize his story like crazy.

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.

Lifestone:

Once he has been found to be a liar, his evidences are completely useless and will be so destroyed by any smart lawyer

Human Trafficking charge still stands

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/modern-slavery-human-trafficking-and-smuggling

[b]Human Trafficking - Section 2 Modern Slavery Act 2015
A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (V) with a view to V being exploited.
It is irrelevant whether the victim consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or child).
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.
A person arranges or a person arranges or facilitates V's travel with a view to V being exploited only if:
the person intends to exploit V in any part of the world during or after travel; or
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.
Travel is defined as:
Arriving in, or entering, any country
Departing from any country, or
Travelling within any country.
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.
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.
Meaning of Exploitation

Removal of organs in circumstances where a person is encouraged required or expected to do anything which involves the commission of an offence under section 32 or 33 of the Human Tissue Act 2004 (prohibition of commercial dealings in organs and restrictions on use of live donors) as it has effect in England and Wales, or which would involve the commission of such an offence if it took place in England and Wales (section 3(4)).[/b]
Securing services etc. by force, threats or deception, where the person is subjected to force, threats or deception designed to induce him or her:
to provide services of any kind,
to provide another person with benefits of any kind, or
to enable another person to acquire benefits of any kind (section 3(5)).
Securing services etc. from children and vulnerable persons in circumstances where another person uses or attempts to use the person for a purpose within subsections (5) (a), (b) or (c), having chosen him or her for that purpose on the grounds that -
he or she is a child, is mentally or physically ill or disabled, or has a family relationship with a particular person, and
an adult, or a person without the illness, disability, or family relationship, would be likely to refuse to be used for that purpose (section 3(6)).

etrange:


No one said he needs to be a child to be granted a refugee status, but if he lied about his age just to indict the senator, passing the refugee hearing would be the least of his worries.

But did he lie under oath?

The Daily Mail said he had the passport of a 41 year old.
The Prosecutor said he was 15.
As I said David has not yet had his day in court where he has given evidence under oath.

The facts remaining are:
David is a Nigerian National who first entered the UK in Feburary this year with a visa application supported by Ekweremadu -Strike 1

David is now in the UK and was here for the purposes of Organ Donation. Strike 2 against the Ekweremadus' who paid for David flight and accomodation while in London (Why did they bring him to the UK?)

UK LAW specifically states that visitors to the UK are only allowed to donate organs to family or close personal relationship like spouse - Strike 3 against the Ekweremadus'
"You can only visit the UK to donate organs to: a family member who you're genetically related to (for example your sibling or parent) someone you have a close personal relationship with (for example your partner or friend)"
https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor/visit-for-medical-reasons#:~:text=If%20you're%20visiting%20as,example%20your%20partner%20or%20friend)

Idiotseverywher:
. Guy go and sit down you are writing rubbish, your hatred on Igbo man will kill you, the first case has been established, he is not a minor, Na to bring evidence that hr was a willing donor,, where he signed documents with some members as witnesses, he thought by lying in oversea country hr will be giving asylum , by the next hearing they will move the case to Nigerian court, their own jurisdictions is off since it has been established not a minor, what they will now go for to know if he was a willing donor and the application for Visa which was clearly stated why the visa is being issued ruled out organ harvesting because no matter how you people bend it he must have been interviewed in UK embassy and his comments documented, once it is established in the next hearing, they will send them back to Nigeria court for the embassy in Nigeria to bear as the first witness in the visa issuance

Even if they bring signed documentation from the boy, they still need to prove that the consent was one of goodwill and not one done because of money or incentive.
This is where the Ekweremadu's goose is cooked because why would a stranger just agree to give somebody he has never met one of his kidneys for free? The simple fact that Ekweremadu paid for David's flight to the UK, accomodated him in his house and fed him is enough for a guilty verdict.

The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is very clear.