A Federal High Court in Abuja yesterday fixed December 5 for ruling on an application filed by the kidney donor, David Ukpo, asking the court to set aside its orders made on July 1 and July 6 which gave former Deputy Senate President, Ike Ekweremadu and his 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 News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Ukpo, through his lawyer, Bamidele Igbinedion, had filed a motion on notice marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/984/202, urging the court to set aside the orders, directing some agencies of government and banks to release his biodata to Ekweremadu and his wife.
Ukpo, who joined the Ekweremadus as applicants/respondents in the motion, also listed the National Identity Management Commission (NIMC) (1st respondent) and four others in the application.
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 from 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 deposed to by the immediate younger brother to the ex-deputy senate president, Bright Ekweremadu, the applicants said Ukpo was not entitled to the reliefs sought as the law does not permit such.
The counter-affidavit was dated and filed on September 8 by their counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN.
In a 20-pont argument, Bright averred that though the court gave its ruling on July 1, Ukpo’s right to fair hearing was not breached.
Court nullifies APC Taraba guber primary, orders fresh election
He said the documents which were released by the agencies and banks upon the orders of the court had been transmitted to the United Kingdom 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 the resumed hearing yesterday, Eyitayo Falogun, SAN, who appeared for the Ekweremadus, 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) had 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.”
Lawyer to NIMC, Muazu Dikwa, 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).
He, therefore, prayed the court to dismiss Ukpo’s application. Lawyers representing other respondents also asked the court to discountenance the motion. But counsel to Ukpo, Bamidele Igbinedion, disagreed with their submission.
He said that contrary to Dikwa’s argument, “Sections 2.2 and 2.3 of the NDPR require 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 the government.”
