Davido: He Visited Only To Have Sex – Sophia Momodu Reveals To Court 

Davido: He Visited Only To Have Sex – Sophia Momodu Reveals To Court 

Sophia Momodu, the mother of Davido’s daughter, has urged the Lagos State High Court to deny the singer’s request for custody of their child.

In a counter-affidavit filed on Friday, Momodu argued that Davido is unfit to care for their daughter due to his consistent unavailability and lack of capacity to provide proper care.

She claimed that during their relationship, Davido showed no genuine interest or affection towards their child, and therefore should not be granted custody.

Momodu is opposing Davido’s lawsuit seeking custody of their daughter.

“He always used the condition of making myself available for his sexual pleasures as a precondition to visit our daughter or show some fatherly love to her.

“The applicant, apart from his cravings for sex, only comes around to spend time with our daughter when he wants to use our daughter for his media stunts or promotions.

“The applicant has always been known to go away and stop communicating with our daughter, to stop making payments for school fees and/or maintenance for our daughter, whenever I refused his sexual advances,” she stated.

The respondent refuted Davido’s assertion, alleging that he has not consistently paid their daughter’s school fees, having missed payments in 2021 and 2022.

In fact, the school reportedly reached out to her in January 2023 regarding outstanding tuition fees, contradicting Davido’s claims of reliable support.

“The school wrote via email notifying me that our daughter will not be allowed entry into the school unless all outstanding fees from 2021 to 2023 were paid off,” she said.

Momodu also revealed that it was actually Davido’s father who stepped in to pay their daughter’s school fees, contradicting Davido’s claims.

She also clarified that she has been solely responsible for paying the rent of their apartment, as Davido did not purchase a home for them.

Momodu emphasized her dedication to providing the best possible care for her daughter, despite Davido’s neglect.

Her legal team, led by Chief Anthony Idigbe, SAN, highlighted the unnecessary mention of their daughter’s name in a hearing notice published by Davido’s legal team.

The judge agreed, stressing the importance of protecting the child’s privacy.

The court then cleared the room of press, litigants, and unrelated counsel before proceeding with the hearing.

Before the press left, Chief Idigbe drew attention to Section 143 of the Lagos State Child’s Rights Law 2015, which safeguards the privacy and best interests of children.

It provides that in a case involving a minor: “No person must be allowed to attend court, other than the members and officers of the court and the parties to the case.

“It also provides that their solicitors and counsel, parents and guardians of the child and other persons directly concerned in the case were free to be allowed in.”

Chief Idigbe also referred to Section 144 of the law, which prohibits the publication of a child’s name.

The section reads: “No person must publish the name, address, school, photograph, or anything likely to lead to the identification of a child in a matter before the court, except as required by the provisions of this law.”

He further referred to Section 145 of the Child Rights Law, which provides: “The proceedings in the court must be conducive to the best interest of the child and must be conducted in an atmosphere of understanding, allowing the child to express himself and participate in the proceedings.”

In her counter-affidavit, Momodu also objected to the publicization of the legal case in a national newspaper, arguing that it was unnecessary and inappropriate to bring attention to a private family matter.

“The applicant (Davido) in publishing this suit in a national newspaper has exposed our daughter to great danger.

“I would have to implement extra security measures to ensure the continued safety of our daughter in school,” she stated.

At the end of the proceedings, it was learnt that the court referred the case for possible settlement by the Alternative Dispute Resolution section of the court during Settlement Week.