Ike Ekweremadu, 60, a former deputy president of the Nigerian senate, his wife, Beatrice, 56, and Dr Obinna Obeta, 51, were found guilty by an Old Bailey jury in March in the first organ trafficking conviction under the Modern Slavery Act.
All of the accused persons are citizens and residents of Nigeria, as is the victim. The accused were convicted of a conspiracy to bring the donor to the United Kingdom in order to exploit him by harvesting his kidney.
The accused persons' parts in the crime:
Ike and Beatrice Ekweremadu are the parents of a daughter with a medical syndrome which requires a kidney transplant. Her uncle knew a doctor called Obinna Obeta from medical school and got in touch with him to find a donor. Obeta identified a possible vulnerable donor in Nigeria, recruited him, promising him money and a chance to work in the United Kingdom and got him a visa into the United Kingdom, after ascertaining that his blood type was fitting for the transplant. The donor did not at any point agree to donate his kidney. Nor were the risks of such an operation explained to him. No provision was made for aftercare for the donor should the transplant take place. Ike, Ekweremadu paid Obeta a sizable sum, part of which was earmarked for the donor, but Obeta took all the money for himself.
In order to secure the visa, Obeta lied by saying the daughter, Sonia, and the donor were cousins. To prove this, he also fabricated an affidavit attesting to this relationship. In order to ensure that the donor would undergo the operation, he kept his passport and exercised control over his movements, thus following Ike's directions to keep tight control over the donor.
The part of hospital staff:
Ike and Obeta were instrumental in establishing and controlling a corrupt relationship with a member of Royal Free Hospital staff, an interpreter who agreed to help coach the donor and provide interpretation.
The clinicians at the hospital believed the lie that the donor and recipient were cousins. However, after interviewing the donor, members of the staff expressed concern that he was not sufficiently mature and motivated to be an organ donor. They took account of his age and ethnicity in reaching this conclusion. Therefore the transplant was not approved.
Despite their concerns, the hospital staff did not report to the safeguarding team and issued no report to the police, despite the indicators that the donor was a victim of trafficking
How the case came to the attention of police: After the hospital staff decided that the transplant would not go forward, a consultant nephrologist and another man examined the donor at the place where he was being kept. The donor believed that he was going to be taken back to Nigeria where the transplant would be conducted.
On the day he was supposed to return to Nigeria, the donor ran away and spent 2 nights sleeping in the streets. He then reported to a police station.
Nigeria- The harm caused: Although the exploitation did not transpire, there was both foreseeable and actual harm.
Foreseeable harm: If the transplant had gone through - the donor would have faced the following: invasive surgery with a small risk of death; spending the rest of his life with one kidney and with no funding for aftercare; an increased risk of early onset raised blood pressure; an increased risk of developing chronic kidney disease in later life and a lifetime risk of dialysis or a need for a kidney transplant himself.
Actual harm: The court notes a substantial and long term adverse effect on the victim's daily life. He is afraid to return to Nigeria due to the risk of retribution from those sympathetic to Ike and Beatrice; he lives a solitary existence, separated from his life, friends and family as a direct result of the offence.
- The part each accused performed in the crime (see the section on facts for details along with the analysis of Ike's role as a kingpin in issue 7 above). The court recognizes Beatrice's limited role compared to the central roles of Ike and Obeta. It brings under consideration, not only acts performed to further this transplant, but also acts performed after this transplant is aborted, as they continue to seek donors.
- The existence of planning and premeditation: on the parts of Obeta and Ike.
- The obtaining of a material advantage by all the accuseds (monetary in regard to Obeta and a kidney in regard to Ike and Beatrice).
- The targeting of a vulnerable victim or awareness of vulnerability – by Obeta and Ike. Interestingly, the court uses Ike's work in a charitable foundation as evidence of his awareness of the impact of vulnerability.
- The deceit towards the hospital and ultimately the tissue agency about the donor and recipient being cousins. All the accused persons were aware of this.
- The corruption of hospital staff by Obeta and Ike.
- Cultural consideration: The court recognizes as a mitigating factor that Beatrice's acquiescence is a function of her patriarchal culture which mandated deference to her husband.
- Medical conditions of Obeta (a former kidney transplant recipient) and Ike (who has ongoing medical problems)recognized by the court as a mitigating factor.
- Good works of all the accused persons are recognized as a mitigating factor.
- The dire straits of the parents are recognized by the court but given more weight in Beatrice's case than in Ike's (see issue 8 above).
- Caring responsibilities toward ill daughter – are brought into account in regard to Beatrice as a mitigating factor.
End custodial sentences:
Obeta: 10 years imprisonment of which two thirds to be served in custody and the remainder on license.
Ike: 9 years and 8 months imprisonment of which two thirds to be served in custody and the remainder on license.
Beatrice: 4 years and 6 months imprisonment with one half served in custody and the remainder on license.
Central Criminal Court of England and Wales
[1] See UNODC Case Digest previously cited, section 4.4 and Case Digest for Southern Africa, sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3, available at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/southernafrica/Publications/CriminalJusticeIntegrity/TraffickinginPersons/Regional_Case_Digest_Southern_Africa_-_English.pdf