Sophia Momodu Claims Davido Stopped Paying Daughter’s School Fees Over Refusal Of Sexual Advances

In her counter-affidavit, Momodu contended, “The applicant is not fit to be granted custody of our daughter because he is not available and does not possess the ability to dutifully care for her.”

Contrary to Davido’s claims of meeting his financial obligations, Momodu revealed their daughter almost faced expulsion due to unpaid tuition fees. She asserted that Davido only showed interest in their daughter when it suited his personal desires or public image.

“He always used the condition of my making myself available for his sexual pleasures as a pre-condition to visit our daughter or show some fatherly love to her,” Momodu stated. She added that Davido’s visits were often for media stunts or promotions and that he would neglect their daughter whenever she refused his sexual advances.

Momodu recalled an incident in 2017 when Davido allegedly threw her and their daughter out of his Atlanta home, forcing them to stay with a friend. She emphasized that she has always been the primary caregiver, ensuring their daughter’s well-being and accommodation, while Davido’s father had to step in to pay the school fees from 2021 to 2023.

Momodu described how she had to stop Davido from visiting late at night when their daughter was asleep, which led to him ceasing all contact. “Whenever I refused to be his sex slave, he would stop caring for his daughter and abandon her, using her sadness to force me to comply with his demands.”

Despite these issues, Momodu stated that she never denied Davido or his family access to their daughter. She highlighted that contrary to Davido’s claims, he has not been consistent in paying school fees, leading to the school notifying her in January 2023 about unpaid tuition from 2021 to 2023.

During court proceedings, Momodu’s legal team, led by Chief (Dr.) Anthony Idigbe (SAN) of Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, raised concerns about the publication of a hearing notice in a national newspaper that mentioned their daughter’s name multiple times. Justice A. J. Bashua agreed that the child’s name should not have been mentioned and asked non-essential parties to leave the courtroom.

Chief Idigbe cited Sections 143, 144, and 145 of the Child’s Right Law of Lagos State, which protect the privacy and best interests of the child in legal proceedings. He criticized the publication for potentially exposing their daughter to danger, necessitating enhanced security measures.

The case has been referred to the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) section for potential settlement during Settlement Week.