Of Ekweremadu, ‘organ donor’ and the distracted public – By Israel Ojoko
Organ donation, as delicate as it is, is not a bad thing. It is the removal of an organ from one person (the donor) and surgically placing it in another (the recipient) whose organ has failed. Organs that can be donated include the liver, kidney, pancreas, and even the heart.
Simply put, it is an act where one healthy person sacrifices an organ of his or her body to help another person, in need of that organ, live longer. The process is carefully done by licensed experts and professionals in the field.
Considering how risky the process is, a lot of things must be put in order so as not to fall on the wrong side of the law and also, to ensure its overall success till the end. These include – (1) The donor must be in good physical and mental health. (2) Must be at least 18 years old. (3) Should be willing to donate: No one should feel that they MUST donate. (4) Must be well informed of the risks, benefits, and potential outcomes, both good and bad, for both the donor and recipient. And (5) Proper arrangement/compensation (NOT BRIBE) must be made to take care of the donor’s welfare and health after the operation or for the rest of their lives.
All these guidelines must be duly followed to the latter and documented before there can be a removal of an organ from a living donor for transplant to a recipient.
In the case of senator Ike Ekweremadu and his wife Beatrice who transported Nwamini David from Nigeria to the United Kingdom for the purpose of organ donation, something or many things are amiss, otherwise, we will not be here.
According to prosecutor Damla Ayas in a statement to Uxbridge Magistrates Court, “the consultant was concerned about his actual age and was concerned he was not aware he was the donor of the kidney. He only found out that the purpose of his visit was for an organ transplant when he visited the hospital.
“The victim was 15. In Nigeria, he was approached by both defendants. He was homeless on the streets of Lagos. They deceived him and promised him a better life in the UK. He was given a passport for a 41-year-old. The passport was illegally obtained by these defendants.
The above statement indicates that David was not well-informed about his mission to the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the Ekweremadus may not be aware that the supposed donor was not duly informed about what he was going to do in the UK if they had sought the help of a third party to get a donor. As parents, I am sure they know that you don’t take or attempt to take someone else’s child’s life because you want to give your own child a long life. I believe they understand that the way their daughter Sonia is precious to them, that is how David is cherished by his own family too.
There is no doubt that something is wrong with the arrangement, and it is obvious there is no genuine agreement or a physical meeting between the two parties before leaving Nigeria. In most cases, how they do this thing ‘Nigerially’ is that Mr or Mrs. Ekweremadu informs a close ally of their daughter’s predicament. The ally billed Ekweremadu, who is willing to do ‘anything’ to give their daughter more life. Ally then went in search of a possible donor and did not mention the exact amount of money he will be paid. Gets someone who shows interest after making all the promises in the world, and without properly explaining the main purpose of the trip and the risk involved. The supposed donor got to the UK, was subjected to many lab tests and checks and counsel, and he is like ‘no, nobody told me about this, is this what they want and offering me this paltry amount of money for?’ I am suspecting this may have been the scene that played out.
On the other hand, David may be aware he was going to donate his kidney in the UK but may not be aware he was going to donate it to the daughter of a big man like the former senate president, on getting there and seeing the rigorous medical scrutiny he was subjected to, decided to have a change of mind. It could be anything, but I know that since it involves Nigerians, then money disagreement could play a major role.
I am concerned about the narrative and distraction playing out on social media and in the public space where small-minded people have shifted focus from the main issue of an alleged human trafficking and organ harvesting crime to the meager subject of the age of the boy. I don’t understand why age should be the main talking point in a situation like this, instead of the real issue of alleged exploitation, human trafficking, and organ harvesting. Why are most people so distracted and concerned about frivolities rather than focusing on the problem itself and its source?
Even if the boy lied about his age, what difference does it make? If he claims he is 15, but his passport says he is 21, whether his acclaimed brother said he is 25, and a foreign media reported that he is 41, do these take away the main issue? Some people even said the boy wanted to ‘japa’ and that is why he went to the police himself to seek asylum. So much criticism and castigation of the boy without people talking about the main alleged crime. Some politicians have even drummed their support for Ekweremadu, while the boy is now being painted as a criminal.
I am disappointed to read how some people who are supposed to have a holistic view and opinion about the whole situation, reduced themselves to mere blame-shifting on the boy. Their only embarrassing point is that the boy lied about his age to the UK authorities. In fact, they have dug out his international passport to prove their point that the boy is 21 and not 15 as being reported by foreign media. Also, pictures are flying everywhere and fake social media accounts of David have been created with fake stories being told there.
The focus shouldn’t be if the boy is 15 years old or 21 years old, that is immaterial with the issue on the ground. The main issue is that a wealthy Nigerian senator and his wife transported him from Nigeria to the United Kingdom for the purpose of removing his kidney for their own daughter, this should be the focus.
Was there a written agreement between the boy and the Ekweremadus? If yes, did the boy accept and sign the agreement under duress or threat or in his right senses? Which member of his family, whether his father, mother, siblings, uncle, or aunt is aware of this? Did they approve it, with a written document to show their consent to take their child to the UK and harvest his organ? If yes, did they do it under duress, threat, or in their right frame of mind?
Also, we must not politicize the whole thing, whether Ekweremadu supports a presidential candidate or not, belongs to a political party or not, has nothing to do with what is on the ground. We should allow the law to take its full course.
Ekweremadu, who has been a senator for at least 19 years uninterrupted and rose to the level of a deputy senate president, should be ashamed that his own country where he has amassed his wealth, where people have entrusted their welfare, and future in his hands, cannot boast of a standard modern-day government medical facility where such procedure can be done. Ekweremadu and his colleagues in the national assembly continue to run abroad at the slightest health concern to get medical care because they can afford it while leaving the poor and vulnerable to die of ordinary malaria.
Now we can see that whether we like it or not, one day, the collapsed health system will affect everybody, including the greedy and visionless leaders.
Israel is a Nigerian journalist and can be reached via israelojoko14@gmail.com
Follow us on social media
