Davido Stopped Paying Daughter’s School Fees After I Refused To Be His S*x Slave – Sophia Momodu Tells Court

Sophia Momodu, mother of Davido’s child, has presented her case to the Lagos State High Court in Yaba, arguing that Davido should not be granted custody of their daughter.

In her counter-affidavit opposing Davido’s custody suit, she stated, “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 assertion that he has consistently met his financial obligations, Momodu revealed that their daughter was nearly expelled from school due to unpaid tuition fees.

She claimed 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.

“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 payment for school fees and/or payment of maintenance for our daughter whenever I refuse his sexual advances,” Momodu stated.

Momodu recounted an incident where Davido allegedly threw her and their daughter out of his Atlanta home during a summer holiday in 2017, forcing them to stay with a friend.

Sophia claimed that Davido only saw their daughter when she agreed to his sexual demands.

“He would stop caring for his daughter and abandon her whenever I refused his sexual advances,” she said.

Momodu emphasized that she has never denied Davido access to their daughter and that it was his choice to be an absentee father.

Momodu explained that she has been responsible for their daughter’s well-being and accommodation. She highlighted that Davido’s father had to step in to pay the school fees when Davido defaulted from 2021 to 2023.

Contrary to Davido’s claims, she asserted that she pays the rent for the apartment where she and her daughter live.

“When I noticed that the intention of the applicant for coming late at night to my house was not to visit our daughter but to seek sexual favours even after our relationship had ended, I told him to desist from such late-night visits as our daughter who needed to be in school in the morning would have slept at the time of his late-night visits.

“It was when I refused the applicant ingress into my house at ungodly hours of the night on the pretext of visiting our daughter that he decided to stop visiting or calling our daughter and this has been the pattern with the applicant all through his relationship with our daughter.

“Whenever I refused to be his sex slave, he would stop caring for his daughter and abandon her and use the fact of our daughter’s sadness due to his absence to force me to accede to his unwholesome demands.

“I have never stopped the applicant or his family members from coming to visit his daughter, calling or reconnecting with our daughter,” Momodu stated.

The respondent stated that contrary Davido’s claim, he has not been faithful in paying their daughter’s school fees, having defaulted in 2021, and 2022 with the school writing to her in January 2023 over unpaid tuition.

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

At the 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 during the hearing.

Chief Idigbe referenced 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 of the suit, stating that it exposed their daughter to potential danger, necessitating enhanced security measures.

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