- Sophia Momodu opposes Davido’s request for joint custody of their daughter, Imade Adeleke.
- Sophia Momodu cites Davido’s frequent international travels and his marital status as reasons why Imade would be safer with her.
- Reference made to the unfortunate loss of Davido’s son in a domestic accident two years ago, questioning his ability to ensure Imade’s safety.
Davido’s baby mama and businesswoman, Sophia Momodu, has vehemently opposed the singer’s bid for joint custody of their daughter, Imade Adeleke.
The affidavit, prepared by her legal team led by Dr. Anthony Idigbe SAN of Punuka Attorneys and Dr. Bimpe Ajegbomogun, outlines compelling reasons why Momodu believes their daughter would be safer under her care.
Central to Sophia Momodu’s argument is the assertion that Davido’s frequent international travels, necessitated by his career as an artist, would prevent him from being consistently present for their daughter during crucial developmental stages.
Moreover, Sophia Momodu expressed concerns about Davido’s current marital status and its potential impact on Imade’s upbringing, asserting that another woman cannot ensure the proper care and upbringing that she believes only a biological parent can provide.
The affidavit also references a tragic incident from two years ago, where Davido lost his son, Ifeanyi Adeleke, under circumstances that Sophia describes as unfortunate and questionable.
According to Sophia’s legal team, this event highlights their argument that Davido may not be able to ensure their daughter’s safety and well-being.
The counter affidavit reads in part;
“The Applicant is an artist who always travels around the world as mandated by his career and cannot possibly be with our daughter at crucial times.
“The Applicant is married to another woman, and they live together. The proper upbringing of our daughter by another cannot be guaranteed.
“The fact that the Applicant lost his son in his house in rather unfortunate and questionable circumstances shows that our daughter cannot be placed in the custody of the Applicant.”
“That I know as a fact that 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.”
“She explained that her relationship with the Applicant begun in 2014 which led to the birth of their daughter in the year 2015, “that we broke up in the year 2017 and sometimes in 2020 we made up and the relationship was finally ended in 2022”.
“According to her, throughout the checkered history of their relationship, she had always attempted to break up with the Applicant as “I was tired of his lies and unfaithfulness, but he always used the withdrawal of his fatherly duties and maintenance for our daughter as a pawn to force me to resume the sexual relationship with him.”
See below;
