• Alleges that the Court of Appeal plans to make an order today to ensure Aminu Ado Bayero holds a hitch-free Durbar

I am reliably informed by sources within the Court of Appeal of plans by some people to procure an order of the same Court of Appeal on Tuesday, 25 March 2025 to enjoin the security authorities in Kano to ensure co-operation with and protection for the Durbar proposed by Aminu Ado Bayero.

Professor Chidi Odinkalu has discredited a statement issued by Dr. Festus Akande, the Supreme Court’s Head of Communication which defended Justice Emmanuel Agim’s attendance at the University of Calabar’s 50 anniversary.

Odinkaku in a statement made available to Law & Society Magazine remarked that: “The fact that Festus Akande considered it essential to issue the statement itself shows that something was wrong with that event in Calabar.”

Citing Rule 2.8 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria (2016) which provides that: “A Judge shall avoid developing excessively close relationship with frequent litigants – such as government ministers or their officials, municipal officials, police prosecutors in any Court where the Judge often sits, if such relationship could reasonably create an appearance of partiality,” Odinkalu noted that: “Neither Festus Akande nor, indeed, Justice Emmanuel Agim as a Justice of the Supreme Court can pretend to be unaware that Nyesom Wike is the most prolific current political litigator in Nigeria.”

According to the law professor and rights advocate: “Aminu Ado Bayero, the Chancellor who conferred the honorary degree on the Minister of the FCT, is seeking to claim benefit of a curious, incongruous and improbable order of the Court of Appeal panel which included the wife of the Minister. As I write, the panel has yet to release the text of the reasoning on which it issued its orders.

“Justice Emmanuel Agim is the author of a curious, incongruous, and inexplicably unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court in favour of satraps of the same Minister in the political contest in Rivers State.

“This context makes the optics of that particular occasion in Calabar an awful advertisement for high subversion of the values of judicial independence and democracy, around whose flags Festus Akande sought to wrap his defense of the indefensible. Even worse, these facts create a credible perception of network transaction in judicial orders.”

Read the full text of the statement below.

As part of its golden jubilee, the University of Calabar is said to have held a special convocation ceremony on Saturday, 22 March, 2025 where it handed out honours to all manner of persons. The Chancellor of the University is Aminu Ado Bayero, the deposed Emir of Kano. Present at that event also were Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory and Nigeria’s most prolific political litigant; as well as Justice Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, a senior Justice of the Supreme Court who delivered the leading decision in the recent judgment of that court concerning the withholding of the federal allocations of the Rivers State Government.

Images of the events in Calabar putting these major actors in contemporary politics of the Nigerian judiciary in close propinquity with one another have gone viral. In response, Festus Akande, Director of Information and Public Relations at the Supreme Court issued a public statement on Monday, 24 March, 2025, in which he felt compelled to claim that Emmanuel Agim attended the convocation “as an esteemed honouree and an alumnus of the institution, whom the Governing Council had found worthy to be conferred with an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Law (Doctor Honoris Causa). He was recognized for his significant contributions to the legal profession; which is a reflection of his commitment to justice, integrity, and the rule of law, serving as a model for aspiring legal professionals and students alike.”

Mr. Akande’s statement further claimed that “Emmanuel Agim’s participation at the ceremony was independent and not as an official representative of any government ministry or department, let alone accompanying any serving or retired government official”, before asserting that “any insinuation to the contrary is not only inaccurate but undermines the judicial independence that is crucial to our democracy.”

These claims are made in the name of the Supreme Court and in pursuit of high-sounding goals of judicial independence and democracy.

The Supreme Court is a public institution embodying the highest judicial authority in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

Judicial independence is a high constitutional principle ordained for the protection of judicial authority as a public trust. It is not a self-serving shibboleth.

In terms of Nigeria’s constitution, the source of democratic legitimacy resides in the people alone.

To leave Festus Akande’s claims uncontested or without a response, therefore, is to diminish the high authority of the Supreme Court, the service of the distinguished men and women who have laboured to give it its historically high standing in the public imagination until recently, and the high principles of judicial independence and democracy instituted for the protection of the peoples of Nigeria.

This statement is issued out of concern to stem the heedless haemorrhaging of the rarefied authority of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. In this spirit, it is essential to set the records straight, even if ever so briefly.

The Applicable Standards

The fact that Festus Akande considered it essential to issue the statement itself shows that something was wrong with that event in Calabar. In case he needs reminding, Lord Chief Justice Hewart laid down the applicable standard for judging judicial impartiality and independence in 1923 in R. v Sussex Justices, Ex Parte McCarthy, (1923) All ER 233, to the effect that: “Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice.”

That event in Calabar was rich with pictures to support suspicions of improper interference with the cause of justice.

 Rule 2.8 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers in Nigeria (2016) is very clear: “A Judge shall avoid developing excessively close relationship with frequent litigants – such as government ministers or their officials, municipal officials, police prosecutors in any Court where the Judge often sits, if such relationship could reasonably create an appearance of partiality.”

In Buhari vs. Independent National Electoral Commission & Ors (2008) LPELR-814(SC) at PP.145-146, Justice Niki Tobi of the Supreme Court admonished judges to “maintain a very big distance from politics and politicians” warning that:

“….the two professions do not meet and will never meet at all in our democracy in the discharge of their functions…. Their waters never meet in the same way Rivers Niger and Benue meet at the confluence near Lokoja. If they meet, the victim will be democracy most of the time, and that will be bad for sovereign Nigeria.”

 In his memoirs, Faces, Cases and Places, published in 1983,(p.78), former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Atanda Fatayi Williams, said:

“In Nigeria, familiarity does not breed contempt. It breeds obligation. As a result, people with whom you are friendly expect you to bend the rules to suit their requirements. It pays in the end for a judge, even at the risk of being accused of being a snob or of haughtiness, to be somewhat aloof, not only from members of the Executive but also from political powerbrokers.”

Neither Festus Akande nor, indeed, Justice Emmanuel Agim as a Justice of the Supreme Court can pretend to be unaware that Nyesom Wike is the most prolific current political litigator in Nigeria. To justify public fraternizing with him by a Supreme Court Justice is to licensing the accessorizing of judicial officers for political purposes.

The Context: Nyesom Wike & Emmanuel Akomaye Agim

On the last day of February 2025, the Supreme Court delivered judgment in the consolidated appeals in SC/CV/1174A/2024 et al, Rivers State House of Assembly & Anor vs. The Government of Rivers State & 9 Ors. The case sought orders of the court to, among other things, require the Central Bank of Nigeria to withhold the federal allocations of the Government of Rivers State until the passage of a budget by a faction of the State House of Assembly. At the time, the question of the right of that faction of the State House of Assembly to function as such was the subject of litigation before lower courts in FHC/PHC/CS/2024 Oko-Jumbo & 2 Ors vs. Martin Amaewhule & Ors (pending in the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt since April 2024).

The case seeking to withhold the federal allocations of Rivers State was unrelated to this appeal. Delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court on 28 February, Emmanuel Akomaye Agim framed two issues for determination neither of which had anything to do with the issues pending before the Federal High Court. Yet, without an appeal from that case before it, the court purported to determine the issues then pending before the Federal High Court on the question of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly from the platform on which they were elected (the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, to the All Progressives Congress, APC). Even though the issue of the defection of the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly did not arise in the appeal, the Supreme Court raised it by itself and shockingly decided a case that was still pending at the High Court.

 This course of action has no precedent in Nigeria’s judicial history. It is the  first in the history of Nigeria that the Supreme Court will take over a case that is pending in the Federal High Court. Unsurprisingly, counsel to the 27 legislators promptly applied to the Federal High Court in Port Harcourt asking it to dismiss the case on the ground that it has become academic on the basis that the Supreme Court has decided the matter while it was still at the Federal High Court. The Port Harcourt judicial division of the Federal High Court will render its judgment on this application on 20 April, 2025.

The Context: Nyesom Wike and Aminu Ado Bayero

 On 14 March, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal sitting in Abuja in Appeal No., CA/KN/27/M/2025, Alhaji Aliyu Babba Dan Sarki Dawaki Babba vs. Kano State House of Assembly & 7 Ors, granted a “Mandatory Injunction” (not a stay of execution) arresting the enforcement of the judgment of the same Court of Appeal on 10 January 2025 in Appeal No. CA/KN/126/2024, Kano State House of Assembly & Anor vs. Alhaji Aminu Babba Dan Agundi & Ors. The earlier judgment of the Court was delivered by a panel led by Justice Gabriel Kolawole, a Justice of Appeal since 22 June, 2018. The latter decision arresting that judgment was given by a panel led by Justice Okon Abang, a Justice of the Court of Appeal since 20 September 2023. Other members of the latter panel were Justice Eberechi Suzette Nyesom-Wike (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024) and Justice Oyejoju Oyewumi (Justice of the Court of Appeal since 10 July 2024). This panel of the Court of Appeal included the wife of the Minister of the FCT, Nyesom Wike.

In terms of seniority in the Abuja division of the Court of Appeal, Justice Okon Abang is no. 6 out of 10; Justice Nyesom-Wike is No. 9; and Justice Oyewumi is the last. It is unprecedented for a panel this junior to be constituted to sit upon a decision of a much more senior panel of the Court of Appeal. It is equally notable that the President of the Court of Appeal has unilaterally moved this case to Abuja from Kano.

 The subject matter of this appeal is a fundamental rights claim by a disaffected king-maker in respect of the stool of the Kano Emirate from which  Aminu Ado Bayero was deposed. The Court of Appeal in Kano had denied that claim, holding that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over essentially chieftaincy matters.

Following this decision, Aminu Ado Bayero, who is not a named party in the case, notified the security services in Kano of his intention to hold an Eid-El-Fitr Durbar at the end of the holy month of Ramadhan. I am reliably informed by sources within the Court of Appeal of plans by some people to procure an order of the same Court of Appeal on Tuesday, 25 March 2025 to enjoin the security authorities in Kano to ensure co-operation with and protection for the Durbar proposed by Aminu Ado Bayero.

Meanwhile, on Monday, 24 March 2025, the Supreme Court entered an appeal against the ruling of the Okon Abang-led Court of Appeal panel as Appeal No SC/CV/279/2025. This should ordinarily preclude the Court of Appeal from further engagement with the subject matter but these are no ordinary times and no one can say what could happen

The Optics

Aminu Ado Bayero, the Chancellor who conferred the honorary degree on the Minister of the FCT, is seeking to claim benefit of a curious, incongruous and improbable order of the Court of Appeal panel which included the wife of the Minister. As I write, the panel has yet to release the text of the reasoning on which it issued its orders.

Justice Emmanuel Agim is the author of a curious, incongruous, and inexplicably unprecedented decision of the Supreme Court in favour of satraps of the same Minister in the political contest in Rivers State.

This context makes the optics of that particular occasion in Calabar an awful advertisement for high subversion of the values of judicial independence and democracy, around whose flags Festus Akande sought to wrap his defense of the indefensible. Even worse, these facts create a credible perception of network transaction in judicial orders.

The 50^th anniversary convocation of a university is not an emergency event. The parties who met in Calabar had to have had notice of that event long before the dates of the judgments or rulings in the cases in which their interests interlocked. There was ample time, if they desired, to make alternative arrangements. Their decision to proceed in the manner they did without any regard to the optics or possible damage to the standing of the judicial institutions serves neither judicial independence nor democracy. Instead, it showcases a peculiar brand of hubris and impunity at the desecration of those high constitutional values.//ENDS

• Odinkalu is a lawyer and a teacher. He can be reached at [email protected]

• Lawmaker says ‘It was Sallah gift’

Law teacher and an ex-chairman of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Prof. Chidi Odinkalu has expressed his disapproval over the release of Rivers State’s withheld allocation, alleging that National assembly members were paid to grant a smooth passage to the Emergency Rule in Rivers State.

Odinkalu in a statement through his official X asserted this allegation and connected the disbursement of the monies to the designation of a single administrator.

Legal experts have deemed the suspension to violate the constitution.

Meanwhile, Mukhtar Betara, the chairman of the House Committee on the Federal Capital Territory has denied reports that lawmakers of the Nigerian Senate and the House of Representatives received $15,000 and $10,000 respectively to approve the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State.

Jafaar Jafaar, an investigative journalists in a post on X said the lawmaker denied that any member of the National Assembly was given money – in foreign currency – to support the State of Emergency proclamation made by President Bola Tinubu.

Betara, however, said lawmakers of the House of Representatives only received $5,000 as Sallah gifts and not as bribes or inducement to support the president’s decision over the political crisis that rocked Rivers State.

Although there was no mention of where the $5,000 as Sallah gift came from, Betara said the gesture was a long-standing tradition within the National Assembly and had no connection with the State of Emergency proclamation in Rivers.

Jafaar wrote on X, “The chairman of the House Committee on FCT, Mukhtar Aliyu Betara, has clarified to me that he only shared $5,000 to each member of his committee as a ‘Sallah Gesture’ not an inducement to support emergency rule in Rivers State.

” According to him, he maintains the tradition – like Santa Claus – every year. As we say in Hausa, not thigh but hind leg,” the journalist posted.

Odinkalu raised the additional point that the allocation was abruptly made available despite a Supreme Court order that stated state allocations should only be provided when democratic administration is in place.

“What if the withheld @riversstategov allocation was unlocked in order to use it to finance the purchase the votes of @nassnigeria behind the State of Emergency, sir?” Odinkalu wrote.

His remarks follow claims that legislators in Rivers State got $10,000 to back President Bola Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency.

According to many, the decision was decided by voice vote rather than the physical vote required by the constitution, which would have required a two-thirds majority.

Responding to Odinkalu’s statement, many Nigerians took to social media to voice their disapproval of the National Assembly’s decision to approve the emergency declaration without following proper procedures and to demand an investigation into Odinkalu’s allegations.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has slammed stringent bail conditions on two Abuja-based business agents, Nsor Nyami and Iranloye Olusegun, who were put on trial by the Inspector General of Police, for allegedly defrauding their employer of N10.6 million.

Justice Musa Suleiman Liman, while admitting the two business agents to bail on Monday, ordered them to produce one surety each who must deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of their landed property in Abuja to the court throughout the trial of the criminal charge against them.

The sureties to the two business agents are also to produce a three-year tax certificate that would be verified by the Federal Inland Revenue Service in addition to signing an N20M bail bond for the defendants to be released on bail.

Delivering a ruling in their fresh bail application, Justice Liman ordered the two defendants to deposit their international passports and their passport photograph with the court, while their sureties must swear to an affidavit of means and submit to the court their National Identification Certificate for the purpose of ascertaining their true identities.

Justice Suleiman, who said that he admitted them to bail on special circumstances of ill health grounds, had vacated his earlier order of January 2025, before admitting them to bail.

Nsor Nyami and Iranloye Olusegun were arraigned before the court for allegedly defrauding their employer of N10.6 million entrusted into their care.

They were also accused of selling unregistered products to unsuspecting customers across the country before the National Agency for Food Drug and Adminiu(NAFDA), sealed up their factory in Abuja.

The Inspector General of Police, who acted on the petition against them and after a thorough investigation slammed on them, a 10-count charge bordering on felony, conspiracy and criminal breach of trust contrary to Section 3 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act, 2007.

Although the defendants denied the charges, the IGP however alleged that the two accused persons, sometime in 2022 in Abuja, conspired amongst themselves to commit felony by dishonestly disposing of the Soya Plus product entrusted to them in violation of directives and guidelines prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 3 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act 2007 and punishable under Section 3 of the same Act.

The IGP also alleged that the two accused persons in the same year dishonestly converted the sum of N10.6M to their own use, being money given to them by various customers in the distribution of Peace Foundation International Soya Plus, and refused to remit the money to their employer.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 308 and punishable under Section 309 of the Penal Code Act.

Also, the IGP alleged that the accused persons in 2022 in Abuja carried out the distribution of an unregistered product named Brika Soya Beans Milk without registration with the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control, NAFDAC.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 1 of the Food Product Registration Regulations of NAFDAC and punishable under Section 7 of the same Act.

In the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/321/24, the second accused person, Olusegun Iranloye, was alleged to have criminally converted, for stealing, the aggregate sum of N2.5m paid to him by various customers, the money being the property of his employer, contrary to Section 286 of the Penal Code Act and punishable under Section 287 of the same Act.

However, shortly after Monday’s ruling, the lead counsel to the accused persons, Ekanem Kanu Agabi, SAN informed Justice Suleiman that the two defendants would prefer to settle the dispute with the nominal complainant while thanking the judge for admitting them to bail on health grounds.

Meanwhile, pending perfection of their bail conditions, the judge ordered that they be remanded in Kuje prison and fixed June 17, for trial of the defendants.

Despite the passage of the Right to Food Act in 2023, which mandates the government to ensure food security, millions of Nigerians face hunger and malnutrition.

The situation is particularly dire in Northern Nigeria, where food insecurity is exacerbated by insecurity, poor policy implementation, and economic challenges, with reports of a dramatic increase in the number of severely malnourished children requiring treatment.

According to the latest World Food Programme (WFP) Nigeria Situation Report, 11 million people across six states in northeast and northwest Nigeria are facing acute food insecurity in 2025. The report attributed the crisis to persistent insecurity, skyrocketing food and fuel prices, climate shocks, and mass displacement, leaving millions struggling to access food and essential nutrition.

A UNICEF report further highlighted that one in three Nigerian children under five, approximately 11 million, are experiencing severe food poverty, making them 50 per cent more likely to suffer from life-threatening wasting. The report identified inadequate nutrition, aggressive marketing of ultra-processed foods, and economic hardships as key factors driving child food poverty.

In 2024 alone, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said it treated over 300,000 children for malnutrition, a 25 per cent increase from 2023.

Of these, 75,000 required critical inpatient care, while 250,000 were managed through outpatient programmes across seven states: Borno, Bauchi, Katsina, Kano, Sokoto, Zamfara, and Kebbi.

MSF country representative Dr Simba Tirima told LEADERSHIP that the humanitarian organisation had witnessed an alarming surge in admissions, surpassing previous years across all its treatment centres.

“Malnutrition is worsening, with admissions exceeding past years in all locations,” Dr Tirima stated.

The crisis is fuelled by multiple factors, including rising food prices, insecurity affecting farming activities, and climate-related shocks such as flooding, which have led to significant crop losses.

“Without an adequate supply of therapeutic foods, we will struggle to effectively treat malnourished children, which could lead to preventable fatalities,” Dr Tirima warned.

MSF said it had begun stockpiling supplies before the peak malnutrition season, particularly in Bauchi State, which operates a 250-bed inpatient facility and three outpatient feeding centres.

However, the organisation remains concerned that decreased funding for other humanitarian agencies could further strain its response capacity.

It, therefore, called for urgent government intervention to address the crisis, highlighting the need for stronger primary healthcare services, greater funding for nutrition programmes, and expanded vaccination campaigns.

“Authorities and partners must take greater action to address the malnutrition crisis,” Dr Tirima emphasised.

With malnutrition cases already surging well before the traditional peak season, MSF fears that 2025 could bring an even graver crisis.

The organisation warns that without immediate intervention, northern Nigeria could see record levels of malnutrition, leading to increased child mortality rates.

In the Right to Food Act, the Nigerian constitution recognises food as a fundamental human right and obligates the government to make food available, accessible, and affordable to all Nigerians. Yet, policy implementation remains weak, and there is no long-term strategy to achieve the law’s objectives.

Executive director of the Global Initiative for Food Security and Ecosystem Preservation (GIFSEP), Dr Michael Terungwa David, noted that though the Right to Food Act was a constitutional amendment signed into law in March 2023, a law is only as strong as its enforcement, and its enforcement is only as strong as the awareness around it.

“Food is not a privilege; it is a basic human right. Yet, millions of Nigerians still struggle with hunger, malnutrition, and food insecurity. The Right to Food Act is a significant policy that addresses these challenges by ensuring access to nutritious, sufficient, and affordable food for all. It mandates government to take responsibility for implementing measures that will make food available, accessible, and adequate for every citizen,” he said.

Dr David identified insecurity as a challenge, noting that conflicts have forced farmers off their lands, making food production difficult.

For instance, 40 per cent of Benue State’s farmland is no longer under cultivation due to insecurity.

In 2021, Nigeria produced 203 million metric tonnes of food, yet hunger persists due to poor distribution and storage policies. Dr David noted that the country’s estimated daily food requirement per person is 2.5 kg. With 230 million people, the nation needs 575,000 metric tonnes of food daily or 210 million metric tonnes annually.

Also, Professor G. B. Ayoola, founder of the Farm and Infrastructure Foundation (FIF) and chairman of Voices for Food Security (VFS), insists that government accountability is crucial for ensuring the Right to Food is a lived reality.

According to him, the Act legally obligates policymakers to respect the right to food by ensuring policies do not hinder access, protect the right to food from harmful practices by both state and private actors and fulfill the right to food by directly assisting vulnerable populations.

He said that failure to uphold these obligations could lead to legal  consequences, yet enforcement remains weak.

Between June and August 2025, an estimated 30.6 million Nigerians across 26 states and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) are expected to experience food shortages, according to the February–March Cadre Harmonisé (CH) analysis. While this is a slight decline from the 33.1 million projected in November 2024, experts warn that millions will still face severe food consumption deficits due to conflict-driven displacements, climate disasters, and economic pressures.

The crisis is particularly devastating for children and pregnant women, with 5.4 million children under five and 787,000 pregnant and breastfeeding women suffering from acute malnutrition. This represents a 23 per cent increase from previous figures.

Alarmingly, 3.7 million children in the northeast are malnourished, struggling with stunting, wasting, and anaemia, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

The most affected states include Yobe, Sokoto, Zamfara, and Katsina, where acute malnutrition has reached Phase Four (Emergency Level) in some local government areas. Maiduguri, Jere, Mobbar, Nganzai, and Mashi are among locations facing dire nutrition crises, with 178,000 children and women from conflict-affected communities most at risk.

Meanwhile, UNICEF has called for bold policy actions to end child food poverty, including strengthening food systems to make nutritious foods more accessible and affordable, expanding nutrition services to prevent and treat malnutrition in early childhood and enhancing social protection programmes, including cash transfers and food aid for vulnerable families.

The Child Nutrition Fund (CNF) is a UNICEF-led initiative designed to prevent, detect, and treat severe child food poverty and malnutrition. It is hoped that malnourished children will find succour through the CNF.

The CNF, established last year with multiple partner support, is a financing mechanism that encourages domestic investments in child nutrition.

UNICEF has urged governments, donors, and financial partners to support the CNF further and prioritise sustainable interventions to tackle child malnutrition. It says that increased investment in nutrition programmes is critical to ensuring that children receive the essential nutrients they need to grow and thrive.

With Nigeria among the top 20 countries with the highest burden of severe child food poverty, stakeholders stress that without urgent intervention, the situation could spiral into a full-blown humanitarian disaster.

However, the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare has said that it was implementing some nutrition intervention policies in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.

The director and head of the nutrition department at the ministry, Mrs Ladidi Bako-Aiyegbusi, stressed the need for improved nutrition budgetary allocation, stating that investment in nutrition will prevent over 10 million cases of childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, and about 220,000 child deaths annually in the country – an important contribution to reducing overall under-5 child mortality.

According to her, intentional Investment in comprehensive nutrition services across the country has the potential to save up to $22 million in healthcare treatment costs related to child malnutrition.

She, therefore, urged lawmakers to ensure pro-nutrition budgetary allocation to key ministries and departments responsible for the delivery of nutrition-specific and sensitive programmes by ensuring timely release of adequate funds, monitoring expenditures, and making sure monies are properly expended.

She urged the legislators to schedule a full-fledged annual debate on nutrition status in their federal constituencies.

Leadership

A UK High Court of Justice has raised concern about the danger of anonymous surrogacy after a Nigerian couple struggled to secure legal parental status for their child due to the lack of identifiable records on the surrogate mother.

Anonymous surrogacy arrangements allow for the intended parents and the surrogate to not know each other’s identities or to have limited direct contact.

These arrangements are often facilitated by surrogacy agencies or legal representatives who act as intermediaries. In the case of the couple identified as Mr and Mrs Houldsworth, Lifelink Fertility Clinic, a medical centre in Lagos, Nigeria, facilitated the arrangement.

However, in a ruling delivered last month, the President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, Andrew McFarlane, said complications could arise when intended parents opt for surrogacy agreements where the identity of the surrogate remains undisclosed.

Mr McFarlane said anonymous surrogacy arrangements prevent the court from ascertaining that the mother knows and consents to the application.

The UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 makes unconditional and informed consent mandatory.

The judge said the couple’s action raises the “suspicion that the arrangement may have been otherwise than it is said to be.”

“Whilst Mr and Mrs H have explained their motivation for opting for an anonymous surrogacy, their decision has caused them a great deal of difficulty in presenting the present application.”

A complicated surrogacy journey

The couple, Mr and Mrs Houldsworth, who reside in the UK, had experienced legal complications trying to secure the legal parental status of their child. Their struggle lasted about two years before the judge gave his verdict last month.

According to the court document obtained by PREMIUM TIMES, the couple opted for surrogacy in 2022 after trying other medical options without success.

They entered into an arrangement with Lifelink Fertility Clinic in Nigeria, under the guidance of its medical director and opted for anonymous surrogacy, which is allowed in Nigeria.

The court document stated that the couple completed the required documentation with the Nigerian court while the surrogate’s identity remained undisclosed throughout the process.

The Houldsworths made this choice because they wished to avoid the crisis often associated with surrogacy between a surrogate mother and the legal parents.

An embryo transplant occurred in mid-2022, and a baby girl was born in 2023. The couple was present during childbirth. Mrs Houldsworth also took a maternity leave and remained in Nigeria for eight months following the birth.

However, trouble began when the new parents began to seek legal status in the UK following their return to the country.

The fertilisation law

Under the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the surrogate mother must provide her unconditional and informed consent before a parental order can be issued for the intended parents.

In the case of Mr and Mrs Houldsworth, the surrogate mother remained anonymous, marking the beginning of a complicated surrogacy journey for the couple that lasted two years.

In 2023, the couple formally applied for legal parent status by filing a parental order application supported by a statutory declaration, but they did not receive immediate approval.

While giving his ruling, which granted a parental order in favour of the couple, the court said the struggle of the parents should serve as a cautionary tale for parents considering anonymous surrogacy, particularly in international settings like Nigeria.

The judge highlighted that while the anonymity was intended to provide peace of mind and avoid future obligations, it ultimately created legal obstacles that could complicate parental recognition.

This case comes at a time when the UK remains vigilant regarding international surrogacy and adoption, with special restrictions already in place for adoptions from Nigeria due to concerns over unreliable documentation and potential corruption, the judge said.

The judge, Mr McFarlane, said those who follow in their footsteps in the future would be well advised to avoid engaging with an anonymous surrogate.

The judge said, “Having now received pieces of information and evidence from Mr and Mrs H, bit by bit, over a series of hearings, and, particularly, having now, at last, had sight of the purported surrogacy agreement, the court is in a position to determine the application.”

He explained that while the act mandates the provision, it provides an exception for cases where a surrogate “cannot be found.”

He said after reviewing extensive evidence, including bank statements, WhatsApp messages and multiple documents related to the surrogacy, it can be ascertained that the couple’s effort to reach the surrogates yielded no success.

This comes at a time of vigilance regarding international surrogacy, and adoption has heightened.

The judge stated that restrictions are already in place for adoptions from Nigeria due to concerns over unreliable documentation and potential corruption.

Premium Times