Sophia Momodu’s legal team has hit back at Davido, accusing him of subjecting its counsel to targeted online harassment after a heated court session.
The firm’s reaction has injected fresh controversy into a legal battle that has captivated the Nigerian public for nearly two years.
The custody dispute initially drew widespread attention after a lawyer, Maruf Mohammed, claimed on X that Davido appeared in court in Yaba, Lagos, and became visibly angry during cross-examination, allegedly causing significant tension in the courtroom.
When the singer subsequently took to social media, what followed was a cascade of posts that would set the stage for the law firm’s blistering response.
Davido confirmed he had officially stepped away from the legal tussle, explaining through a series of emotional posts on his Instagram stories that his intention from the beginning was not to gain full custody but to secure joint custody of his daughter.
His clarification was unambiguous: “Never asked for full custody… I asked for joint custody. Nobody won, nobody lost, but I made… so I don’t know why some people are celebrating. There’s nothing to celebrate.”
But it was not the withdrawal itself that ignited the firestorm; it was what Davido said that came immediately before it. According to reports, the court proceedings were going well until Sophia’s lawyer asked how he would be able to guarantee Imade’s safety when he was unable to protect his son, Ifeanyi, who passed away in October 2022.
The comment ticked Davido off, who reportedly lost his cool and slammed the lawyer inside the courtroom. The proceedings were halted for a while, and when the court reconvened, the judge asked Davido to apologize to the court and the lawyer, but the singer reportedly refused, insisting he could never apologize for what was said about his deceased son.
In his own raw and unfiltered account on social media, the singer described the moment with barely concealed fury: “I’ve decided to drop the case because when I was spanking that lawyer in the courtroom, she would get so frustrated because I normally finish school. I was finishing her… until she brought out her last card! My deceased son! That’s a no-no! Lowest blow!”
He went further, directing a pointed message at opposing counsel, Mrs. Ebelechukwu Egeonu Enedah, by name. In the post, he accused her of acting unprofessionally by making hurtful remarks about his late son, writing, “I disgraced you in the courtroom. I was teaching you your work, you couldn’t even take it, and then went on to mention my son… You are a wicked human being. You are the worst lawyer ever. You are not learned.”
Critically, in a separate post, the singer also published the lawyer’s name and social media handle and, in a widely noted blunder, mistakenly tagged gospel artist Tosin Bee in the process. The tagging of Mrs. Enedah drew immediate and significant online attention to her profile, exposing her to the formidable reach of Davido’s millions of followers.
It was this chain of events, the public naming, the social media exposure, and what the firm characterized as inflammatory and intimidatory conduct, that prompted Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors to break their silence in a formal statement on Monday.
The firm condemned what it described as “all manner of inflammatory public statements” directed at their partner, Ebelechukwu Enedah, arising from her professional conduct in the custody proceedings. It stressed that the matter is sub judice and “will be decided by the court alone, on evidence and law,” warning that attempts to intimidate legal practitioners could undermine the rule of law.
The statement’s language left little room for ambiguity. Calling out a “Nigerian Afrobeat artiste” without naming Davido directly—though the reference was unmistakable—the firm declared that the courtroom is the only proper arena for this dispute and that no volume of public commentary would alter their approach or the judicial process.
More pointedly, the firm framed the episode in terms that transcend the specifics of this particular celebrity dispute, warning of consequences for the Nigerian justice system at large: “If legal practitioners are to be threatened, intimidated, or exposed to harassment outside the courtroom for asking questions, testing evidence, or discharging their professional duty to their clients, then the very foundation of justice is imperiled. The administration of justice depends upon fearless advocacy.”
The statement concluded with a call to action directed squarely at the legal community: “We call upon the Nigerian Bar Association and lawyers globally to rise up in one voice to condemn this aberration and gross violation of our profession.”
The custody battle has been long and bitterly contested. At a hearing on 5 July 2024, before Justice Bashua’s family court in Yaba, Lagos, Davido’s legal team argued that the singer had consistently fulfilled his paternal responsibilities, including paying school fees and providing transportation and accommodation for Imade.
Sophia Momodu responded by claiming Davido had abandoned their daughter for two years and stopped meeting his financial obligations, leaving her to cover rent, living costs, travel, healthcare, and other expenses.
Her legal team argued that Davido’s lifestyle, frequent travel, public controversies, and exposure to numerous adults in his circle made him unfit for custody. They also cited his remarriage and the death of his son as reasons why Imade could not be placed solely in his care. It is this last argument—the invocation of Ifeanyi Adeleke’s tragic drowning death in 2022—that appears to have been the most combustible element of the entire proceeding.
Legal analysts and observers watching the case are divided on the question of professional conduct. Some have argued that the reference to Davido’s deceased son, however painful, fell within the bounds of legitimate courtroom advocacy, insofar as it touched on questions of parental supervision and the child’s welfare. Others have expressed sympathy for the singer’s emotional reaction, even while questioning whether his public response crossed a line.
What is beyond dispute is that the case has now moved beyond the confines of the Lagos High Court and into a much larger national conversation—about the rights of legal practitioners to perform their duties free from public intimidation, about the responsibilities of public figures with massive social media platforms, and about the very human cost of custody battles waged in the glare of celebrity.
For Imade, the practical reality is that her daily life continues under the existing arrangement. She remains the child of two highly visible public figures whose interactions are constantly scrutinized.
As of the time of this report, the NBA had not issued a formal response to Punuka Attorneys’ call for action. Sophia Momodu had also not issued a detailed public statement addressing the firm’s release or Davido’s posts.
The case, despite Davido’s announced withdrawal, technically remains within judicial purview, and the Lagos High Court has not yet formally closed the matter.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW
Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors has accused Davido of harassing its partner, Mrs. Ebelechukwu Egeonu Enedah, online after he publicly named her and shared her social media handle following a custody hearing—exposing her to backlash from his millions of followers. The firm has called on the Nigerian Bar Association to condemn the act and defend the integrity of the legal profession.
