Ifeanyi: If anyone is to face prosecution, it should be OBO, Chioma - Lawyer

Well-known human rights advocate and lawyer from Port Harcourt, Abakpa Adoyi Matthew has argued that it will be very challenging to bring charges against the domestic workers who looked after Davido's son Ifeanyi, who recently drowned in a swimming pool.

In the opinion of Abakpa, Davido ought to be charged with a crime for exposing his 3-year-old son to a swimming pool, which he deemed to be extremely hazardous for a child of that age.

On Tuesday morning, the sad news of the artist's son's passing greeted Nigerians in the morning.

According to rumors, the chef joined them while Ifeanyi was with the nanny. Ifeanyi and the Chef were left alone when the nanny only left to answer a phone. But the boy fled the space covertly.

After searching for him for 20 minutes, they finally found him after spotting movement in the pool. He was taken to the Lagoon hospital where it was determined that he had died because he had been submerged for too long.

All of the artist's domestic staff were immediately summoned by the police for questioning of which at the very least, nine employees were invited.

Six of them were later released by the police, leaving only the caregivers, the nanny, and the chef behind.

Who is responsible for the death of young Ifeanyi has been the subject of numerous arguments.

Many people have accused the caregivers of negligence, claiming that it was puzzling how a child in their care could have vanished for up to 20 minutes without leaving any trace.

Barrister Abakpa, however, holds a different viewpoint. While expressing sympathy for Davido and his fiancée, Chioma, Abakpa responded that because Davido exposed his son to a dangerous activity, he cannot bring legal action against others for negligence.

The attorney further argued that because there was no deliberate act to commit the crime, the caregivers could not be held accountable for any criminal offense under the cause of reasonable action.

"No criminal offense committed. We are saying this because Davido is a top celebrity. If this happens in your house, would you hold anyone liable?

"This is purely an incident that is pitiful. It was not deliberate. Did the nanny who went to receive a call send the little one to the swimming pool? They should not take it far as to implicate innocent people. While we regret the boy's death and feel it's a sad thing to happen to parents, we can observe that it was not deliberate," Abakpa asserted.

Abakpa added that while Davido may have wanted to give his son the best, exposing him to swimming at the age of three was not the best idea. He claimed that the youngster had to have believed he was a certified swimmer.

"I have also watched different video clips where Davido himself took the boy to the swimming pool, threw him into the swimming pool and later brought him out after the boy started shouting. They had gone swimming on different dates.

"A child of about three years; what are you teaching him in terms of swimming in a pool for an adult. The boy actually went to practice what he was taught. His father had taught him how to swim. In fact, there was a video clip where Davido even certified him as a swimming expert and water safe. I watched it myself. So the boy may have felt like a professional and went in the pool to swim. What happened to him was caused by his father," Abakpa said.

Basing his case on the concept of reasonableness, he said: If you are in your own house as we speak, and you have such a deep swimming pool in your house, the first thing is to caution your children not to go close to the swimming pool. But this one, they have certified him safe.

"As far as I'm concerned, he was drowned because any adult can also be drowned. His father said he could swim. They didn't conspire to kill the boy. So in this case, before you can establish criminal negligence, the terms of reasonableness must be applied.

"In the eyes of a reasonable man, what this person has done; is it negligence? And that you want to receive a call and you are with a child inside the house and you just stepped away only to return and not find the child. From a reasonable point of view, can you be held guilty for that? I don't think so. That is my opinion."

Abakpa argued that there is little chance of a child sneaking into a pool when they are left unattended to.

"Is it probable that when you leave a child of Ifeanyi's age, he will just run to the swimming pool to swim? If you ask him to sit there, he should obey and sit there. It would have been different if the domestic staff worker had asked him to fetch water from around the pool, and he fell in. That could be an act of negligence. That was likely not what happened.

"While I console with the family, and I acknowledge that it could be painful knowing that there is nothing more than losing a child, they should be consoled and ask God to replace him for them.

"In fact, if I were Davido, nobody would be in the cell over the boy's death by now. You could order the release of all of them to have your cool.

"But if anybody should be charged over the death of Davido's Ifeanyi, the father should also be charged because he exposed his child to a dangerous activity. It's against the child's right for exposing a 3-year-old to activities that can endanger his life. Technically, it has happened that way," the lawyer added.