A Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, on Tuesday, fixed Dec. 5 for ruling on an application filed by David N. Ukpo, the kidney donor, asking the court to set aside its orders giving former Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and wife, Beatrice, access to his biodata.
Justice Inyang Ekwo fixed the date after counsel for parties in the suit adopted their processes and presented their arguments.
The court had on July 1 and July 6, directed that Ukpo’s biodata be given to the Ekweremadus to aid their case in the UK Court.
Ukpo, in a motion maked: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/202 and filled through his lawyer, Bamidele Igbinedion, prayed the court to set aside the orders, directing some agencies of government and banks to release his biodata to Ekweremadu and his wife.
The suit had the Ekweremadus as applicants/respondents in the motion and also listed the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) (1st respondent) and four others in the apllication.
Others mentioned in the motion are the Comptroller General (C-G), Nigeria Immigration Service (NIS); Stanbic-IBTC Bank; United Bank of Africa (UBA) and Nigeria Inter-Bank Settlement System Plc as 2nd to 5th respondents respectively, but the 5th respondent was later dropped form the charge.
Ukpo, who is currently in the United Kingdom (UK), in connection with the alleged organ harvesting charge against the Ekweremadus, had said that granting the couple’s request violated his fundamental rights to privacy guaranteed by Section 37 of 1999 Constitution (as amended).
But in a counter affidavit, dated and filed on Sept. 8 by their counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN and deposed to by Bright Ekweremadu, the immediate younger brother to the ex-deputy senate President, the applicants said Ukpo was not entitled to the reliefs sought as the law does not permit such.
In a 20-point argument, Bright said that the court ruling on July 1 did not in any way contravene with Ukpo’s right to fair hearing.
He said that the documents which were released by the agencies and banks upon the orders of the court had been transmitted to the UK and had been “tendered at the Uxbridge Magistrate Court, and at the Central Criminal Court in the UK and have subsequently formed part of the record of the courts.”
At Tuesday’s proceedings, Counsel to the Ekweremadus Eyitayo Falogun, SAN, adopted his applications and urged the court to dismiss Ukpo’s request.
He said he was aware that a coalition of civil society organisations under the auspices of the Edo Civil Society Organisation (EDOSCO), initiated the motion on Ukpo’s behalf.
Falogun, who called the attention of the court to Upko’s motion, described EDOSCO as “a meddlesome interloper.”
Muazu Dikwa, lawyer to NIMC, argued that the orders made by court on July 1 and July 6 were in line with Section 2.11 of the National Data Protection Regulation (NDPR), 2019.
According to him, the regulation says that every transmission of data to a foreign land shall be done under the supervision of the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and therefore, prayed the court to dismiss Ukpo’s application.
Lawyers representing other respondents also asked the court to dismiss the motion.
But counsel for Ukpo, Bamidele Igbinedion, disagreed with their submission.
He said that contrary to Dikwa’s argument, “Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the NDPR requires that if anyone applies for another person’s biodata, one must put the subject person on notice that there is an application for the disclosure of his or her personal information which is held by government.”
Igbinedion argued that there was no authority given to government to disclose personal information of any Nigerian without putting that Nigerian on notice.
He, therefore, contended that the court did not have jusridiction to have ordered the release of Ukpo’s biodata to the AGF for onward transmission to the UK in the first instance.
He added that the respondents, including the Ekweremadus, had not shown that the court had the statutory jusridiction to order the disclosure of private information held by government.
The lawyer prayed the court to grant the reliefs sought and reverse the orders.
Justice Ekwo adjourned the matter until Dec. 5 for ruling.
