Sophia Momodu, the mother of Davido’s daughter, has urged the Lagos State High Court in Sabo, Yaba, not to grant custody of their child to the musician.
During a court session on Friday, Momodu argued that Davido is unfit for custody due to his frequent unavailability and inability to care for their daughter properly.
In her counter-affidavit opposing Davido’s custody request, Momodu claimed that during their relationship, Davido never showed genuine commitment or affection towards their daughter.
She accused him of using the pretext of visiting their daughter to demand sexual favors from her. She stated, “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.”
Momodu further alleged that Davido’s visits were primarily for media stunts or promotions involving their daughter. She asserted that he would stop communicating with their daughter and cease paying for her school fees and maintenance whenever she rejected his sexual advances.
She recounted an incident in 2017 when Davido allegedly threw her and their daughter out of his home in Atlanta, forcing them to seek shelter with a friend.
Momodu insisted she never denied Davido access to their daughter; rather, he chose to be an absentee father. She claimed that Davido only visited late at night seeking sexual favors, even after their relationship ended, which prompted her to restrict his late-night visits to ensure their daughter could sleep and attend school in the morning.
She explained, “It was when I refused the applicant’s 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.”
She added that whenever she refused his sexual advances, Davido would neglect his daughter, using her sadness to coerce Momodu into compliance.
Momodu also clarified that contrary to Davido’s claims, she had been paying the rent for their apartment and he had defaulted on paying their daughter’s school fees in 2021 and 2022, requiring his father to intervene and settle the debts in January 2023.
Represented by Chief Anthony Idigbe, SAN, of Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, Momodu’s legal team criticized the publication of the hearing notice by Davido’s legal team in a national newspaper, which mentioned their daughter’s name multiple times.
Justice A. J. Bashua agreed that while the press could report on the case, the child’s name should not be disclosed. The judge subsequently asked members of the press, litigants, and unrelated counsel to leave the courtroom.
Before their departure, Chief Idigbe, referencing Section 143 of the Child’s Rights Law of Lagos State 2015, reminded the court that only those directly involved in the case should be present during the proceedings.
He also cited Section 144, which prohibits publishing a child’s name and identifying details in court matters, and Section 145, which mandates that proceedings should be in the child’s best interest and conducted in an understanding atmosphere.
Momodu criticized the publication of the suit in a national newspaper, arguing that it endangered their daughter, necessitating extra security measures for her safety at school.
At the end of the session, the court referred the case to the Alternative Dispute Resolution section for possible settlement during Settlement Week.
