UK Court Rescind Ruling, Orders Deportation of Nigerian over Paternity Fraud
United Kingdom upper court has Rescind a previous court decision that stopped the deportation of 43-year-old Nigerian Olutobi Ogunbawo.
The decision comes after his wife, Maria Adesanya, claimed that in vitro fertilisation treatment was unavailable in Nigeria, a key argument in their defence.
Ogunbawo, convicted in 2019 for immigration offences related to conspiring with a British citizen to claim paternity falsely, had served a three-year prison sentence.
Following his release, he faced deportation proceedings. In January 2023, a first-tier tribunal judge ruled in his favour, citing the impact of deportation on his wife’s ability to conceive a child through IVF.
Maria testified that IVF, essential to their efforts to start a family, was not an option in Nigeria.
However, the secretary of state for the Home Department challenged this claim, arguing that the tribunal’s reliance on her testimony lacked supporting evidence.
The upper tribunal reviewed the case and, on November 4, 2024, ruled that the initial decision was flawed.
It was found that the first-tier tribunal judge failed to seek objective evidence to verify Maria’s assertion.
The upper tribunal noted that a simple internet search could confirm the availability of IVF services in Nigeria, undermining the couple’s argument.
ALSO READ: Ghana Election A Triumph For West African Democracy – Publisher
The judgment criticized the earlier ruling, stating: “We conclude that the judge erred in exclusively relying upon Ms A’s (referring to Maria) personal evidence when finding as a fact that IVF treatment is unavailable in Nigeria,” the upper tribunal ruled, according to Daily Mail on Sunday.
The tribunal set aside the earlier decision and ordered the case to be reheard by a different judge.
“We observe the Secretary of State’s unchallenged assertion before us that even the most basic Google search reveals the existence of IVF treatment in Nigeria.
“The Secretary of State’s appeal is allowed to the extent that the decision of the First-tier Tribunal is set aside in its entirety.
“The appeal is to be remitted to the First-tier Tribunal to be heard by any judge other than First-tier Tribunal Judge Malone,” it added.