N800m Damages: Fani-Kayode Joins Issues In Court Against Ex-Lovere

Precious Chikwendu had instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit at the Federal High Court against Fani-Kayode, the Inspector General of Police, his officers and men etc., wherein she is claiming the sum of N800million as damages.

Other respondents are the Deputy Inspector General of Police Force CID, Commissioner of Police FCT, CSP James Idachaba OC Legal (CID) FCT Command.

The plaintiff is demanding the said amount because of the roles of the respondents in intimidating and harassing her during the pendency of her custody suit.

Specifically, Precious Chikwendu is asking the court to restrain the IGP and his officers and men from intimidating and harassing her in any form whatsoever pending the hearing and determination of her suit seeking the custody of her four children for Fani-Kayode.

However, in a bid to clear his name, Fani Kayode has filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the suit, and therefore has asked the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit as well as constituting an abuse of court process.

Fani Kayode stated that he has read the 23 paragraph supporting affidavit of Ms. Precious Chikwendu, and said, “I know that they are concocted facts, presented by subterfuge, in order to mislead the Court and frustrate the administration of justice”.

“I know that the instant suit is nothing but a smoke screen intended to avoid the longs arms of justice and to malign me. There is no merit whatsoever in this suit, which was filed in abuse of court and judicial process. It is in the interest of justice to dismiss this suit for lacking in merit. I conscientiously depose to this counter-affidavit from facts within my personal knowledge, and in good faith, believing same to be in accordance with the Oaths Act currently in force”, the embattled former Minister stated.

On alleged separation from children, FFK stated, “Furthermore, contrary to Paragraphs 4 & 5, it is not correct that the Applicant was violently separated from her children.

“Rather, she elected to leave her matrimonial home and consciously abandon the children, in order to optimize without restraints, her extra-marital and inordinate sexual escapades”.

“As a fact, it is not surprising that Ms. Precious Chikwendu is capable of such reckless abandonment, because: whilst she was with me in the house afore described, she employed 12 in-house nannies to cater for the children, excluding supervisors and nurses who equally attend to them; the Applicant did not at anytime extend maternal care to the children, for the reason that she had a medical condition which deprived her of any filial bond with them; she deprived the children of the natural sucks or breast milk, also on account of the need to preserve her body shape, coupled with a contrived medical condition which she claimed would not permit her to breast feed them.”

According to FFK, “Despite the enormity of the Applicant’s brazen amoral acts, several entities had been made to her, in returning home or visiting the children, but she completely rebuffed all.

“In a recent letter which was written to her Solicitor handling the matrimonial case, his attention was drawn to the fact that there has been no time that the Applicant was deprived physical access to her children, in as much as she has been speaking to them on phone and doing video calls with them.

FFK in his counter affidavit added that “The Applicant only plays the victim and cries foul of deprivation of access or separation from her children, when indeed, she does not deeply desire to be with them”.

On investigation with respect to allegations of forgery/falsification of Court Records Contrary to the depositions in Paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 of Applicant’s Affidavit, I know as a fact that: the proceedings in Suit No. CV/372/2021 have been adjourned sine die, by the trial High Court, the same having become a subject of Appeal in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/318/2021.

Respective copies of Briefs settled at the Court of Appeal are attached and marked Exhibits C1 & C2; prior to the said adjournment pending Appeal, the Applicant had approached the Court Ex parte, for custody of the four children; the Court was circumspect of granting such an incredulous Application, whereof it directed the Applicant to serve the Originating Motion and Motion for Interlocutory Injunction on me; rather than effect personal service of these documents, the Applicant usurped the authority of Court to serve only the interlocutory Motion by substituted means, and completely refrained from serving the substantive Originating Motion.