Babatunji Wusu –
- Reversal of decision: The UK Upper Tribunal overturned a previous ruling that halted the deportation of Nigerian Olutobi Ogunbawo.
- IVF claim dismissed: The defense argued that IVF treatment was unavailable in Nigeria, a claim made by Ogunbawo’s wife, Maria Adesanya, but this was found to lack supporting evidence.
- Conviction and deportation: Ogunbawo had been convicted in 2019 for immigration offences and served a three-year sentence, leading to his deportation proceedings.
- Tribunal’s findings: The Upper Tribunal criticized the earlier ruling, stating that the first-tier judge relied solely on personal testimony without verifying the availability of IVF in Nigeria.
- Case remitted: The case was sent back to the First-tier Tribunal to be reheard by a different judge.
The United Kingdom Upper Tribunal reversed a previous decision that prevented the deportation of 43-year-old Nigerian Olutobi Ogunbawo. This change came after his wife, Maria Adesanya, had argued that IVF treatment was not available in Nigeria, which was a central part of their defense against his deportation.
Ogunbawo, convicted in 2019 for immigration offences related to conspiring with a British citizen to falsely claim paternity, had served a three-year prison sentence. After his release, deportation proceedings were initiated. In January 2023, a first-tier tribunal judge ruled in his favor, citing concerns about the impact of his deportation on his wife’s ability to conceive through IVF, claiming the procedure was unavailable in Nigeria.
However, the Secretary of State for the Home Department challenged this decision, arguing that the tribunal’s reliance on Maria’s testimony was unsupported by objective evidence. The Upper Tribunal reviewed the case and, on November 4, 2024, ruled that the earlier judgment was flawed. It found that the first-tier judge failed to seek evidence to verify Maria’s claim, noting that a simple internet search would have confirmed the availability of IVF in Nigeria, which undermined their argument.
The Upper Tribunal criticized the original ruling, stating: “We conclude that the judge erred in exclusively relying upon Ms. A’s personal evidence when finding as a fact that IVF treatment is unavailable in Nigeria.” The tribunal set aside the decision and ordered the case to be reheard by a different judge, stressing that a basic Google search revealed the existence of IVF services in Nigeria.
