How Obasanjo slept with his son's wife and destroyed his marriage

The saying that those whom the gods want to destroy, they first make mad, may be haunting Nigeria's ex-tyrant once again. This time, it is not the ex-dictator's violent and lawless kleptocracy that seems to be the matter. Judging from the sworn affidavit by Obasanjo's first son, Gbenga, it would appear that his father's life may be much more seedy and sordid than anything one has ever imagined. To cut a long story short, Gbenga, through his lawyers, is attesting that his father, Olusegun "Igbochukwu" Obasanjo,

has had a love affair with his wife! Readers are invited to digest the report on this abomination below. Poor Gbenga! What kind of father would destroy a son's life this way? Like in the Iyabo contract scandal, this "family affair" (no pun intended) has profound socio-economic implications for the country. 

First son of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Gbenga, has sensationally accused him and his father-in-law, Otunba Alex Onabanjo, of sleeping with his wife, Mojisola Gbenga, presently asking Lagos High Court to dissolve the seven-year-old marriage, doubts the paternity of the fruits of the wedlock. The shocking revelation is contained in a fresh affidavit deposited to by the petitioner in response to cross petition of the defendant, a copy of which was made available to Sunday Sun at the weekend.

Earlier, Mojisola had accused Gbenga of sundry sins including assault and battery. The divorce suit has been dragging in court since 2006. The 50-paragraph affidavit is averred to on Gbenga’s behalf by his solicitors, Addeh Associates. 

The tenth paragraph says: “The Petitioner (Gbenga Obasanjo) further avers that he knows for a fact that the Respondent committed adultery with and had an intimate, sexual relationship with his own father, General Olusegun Obasanjo, due to her greed to curry favours and contracts from him in his capacity as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

"The Petitioner avers that the Respondent also got rewarded for her adulterous acts with several oil contracts with the NNPC from his father, General Olusegun Obasanjo, amongst which was the NNPC consultancy training in supply chain management and project management awarded to her company Bowen and Brown."

The eighth paragraph says: “The Petitioner avers that the respondent confided in him severally while they living together (sic) that she had been sexually abused and defiled by her father, Otunba Alex Onabanjo on several occasions.”

Neither Chief Obasanjo nor Otunba Onabanjo could be reached for reaction as at press time last night.

Below is the full text of the affidavit:

1. Same as hereinafter admitted, the Petitioner denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the consequential amendment of answer and cross-petition as if such allegations were set out seriatim and specifically traversed.

2. The Petitioner admits paragraph 2 of the consequential amendment of answer and paragraphs 12, 14, 15(a), 16(di), 16(diii), 17(a) and 21(a) of the cross petition.

3. The Petitioner denies paragraph 4, 5,6,7,8,9,10 of the consequential amendment of answer and paragraphs 13, 15 (b), 16 (a), (b), (c), (d), d (ii), d(iv), e, f, g, 17(b), (c), 18, 19, 20, 21(b), 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 of the Cross Petition.

4. In response to paragraph 4 of the consequential amendment of answer, the Petitioner denies that he has since January 2006, stopped being responsible for the payment of school fees, books and other relevant materials and other needs of the two children as well as general expenses for their welfare and upkeep and avers that the Respondent normally collects from him on behalf of the children, monies to meet all the children needs but has refused to collect same this year despite several reminders and entreaties from the Petitioner and the Petitioner’s Solicitor.

5. In furtherance of paragraph (4) above, the Petitioner avers that the children of the marriage reside and are in the custody at alternative times with both the Petitioner and the Respondent depending on whether they are in school or on holidays, and are also accessible to either party whilst in the custody of the other upon proper notification to either side. The Petitioner denies that either party has exclusive custody of the two children of the marriage.

6. The Petitioner denies paragraph 6 of the consequential amendment of answer that the Respondent attends to the moral, religious and physical well being of the two children and states that the Respondent’s way of life and social conduct is so unbecoming that it would have a very negative moral and religious impact on the children if they are made to reside with her.

7. The Petitioner avers that he has always met all the needs of the children of the marriage despite always having serious doubts about their actual paternity.

8. The Petitioner avers that the respondent confided in him severally while they living together (sic) that she had been sexually abused and defiled by her father, Otunba Alex Onabanjo on several occasions.

9. The Petitioner avers that it was his bid to forcefully put an end to this ignoble acts on the part of his Father-in-Law, Otunba Alex Onabanjo, that led to the total breakdown of relations between himself and Otunba Onabanjo.

10. The Petitioner further avers that he knows for a fact that the Respondent committed adultery with and had an intimate, sexual relationship with his own father, General Olusegun Obasanjo, amongst which was the NNPC consultancy training in supply chain management and project management awarded to her company Bowen and Brown.

11. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent also got rewarded for her adulterous acts with several oil contracts with the NNPC from his father, General Olusegun Obasanjo, amongst which was the NNPC consultancy training in supply chain management and project management awarded to her company Bowen and Brown.

12. The Petitioner avers that the lurid sexual relationship of the Respondent, with her own father, Otunba Alex Onabanjo and his father General Olusegun Obasanjo, has brought him great pain and psychological trauma and is the primary reason for the breakdown of his marriage to the Respondent.

13. The Petitioner avers that the respondent while married to him was also committing adultery with one Mr. Olumide Ogunlesi.

14. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent shamelessly carried on her sexual escapades without any thought as to the psychological effect of same on him.

15. The Petitioner avers that it is now necessary for a court ordered DNA test to be carried out on both himself, Otunba Alex Onabanjo and General Olusegun Obasanjo by a competent independent medical laboratory chosen by the court, in order to ascertain the actual paternity of the children of the marriage as the continued uncertainty about their actual paternity is making his life a misery.

16. The Petitioner avers that the actual father of the children of the marriage will be found amongst himself, Otunba Alex Onabanjo and General Olusegun Obasanjo and same must be addressed immediately.

17. The Petitioner avers that it is pertinent that this is done before further deliberations in this matter as the issue of the children’s paternity is integral to the determination of the suit and must thus be resolved and laid to rest urgently.

18. The Petitioner denies paragraph 7,8, and 9 of the consequential amendment of answer and avers that the Respondent deserted the Petitioner and abandoned her matrimonial home on December 2, 2004 and never came back and co-habitation between parties ceased from that day.

19. The Petitioner specifically denies the averment in paragraph 9 of the consequential amendment of answer and puts the Respondent to strict proof of the averment therein.

20. Further to paragraph (8) above, the Petitioner avers that there was never violent conducts throughout the marriage exhibited by the Petitioner towards the Respondent and the Respondent was not in the matrimonial home until the 7th July, 2005 nor was she ever forced or compelled to leave as she left on her own volition due to her refusal to alter her various unbecoming conduct despite several pleas and entreaties by the Petitioner and well-meaning family friends and relatives on both the Petitioner and the Respondent’s side of the family.

21 The petitioner denies the averment in paragraph 10 of the consequential amendment of answer and requests the court for a decree of dissolution of marriage against the Respondent in accordance with his Petition.

22. The Petitioner denies paragraph 13(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), of the Cross Petition and puts the Respondent to strict proof of the averments therein.

23. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent was consistent in engaging in various unbecoming anti-social conduct which brought embarrassment to the Petitioner and the children and several pleas to the Respondent to mend her ways were met with stiff rebuff and ultimately desertion of her matrimonial home by the Respondent on the 2nd of December, 2004.

24. The Petitioner avers in reference to paragraphs 15(a) and 15(b) of the Cross Petition that the children of the marriage shall continue in school and progress to higher institutions of learning in future, to reach their full potential as always has been the case at the cost of the Petitioner who has always been responsible for their upkeep and welfare.

25. The Petitioner denies paragraph 15(b) of the Cross Petition and stats that the children reside at alternate times with either the Respondent or the Petitioner depending on whether their school is in session or otherwise.

26. The Petitioner denies paragraph 16(a) of the Cross Petition and avers that it is a gold digging scheme and calculated extortion by the Respondent of non-existent funds using the children as a cover, as the Petitioner has always met the entire needs of the children without prompting and is able to continue doing same until they attain adulthood, as the lump sum payment demanded by the Respondent clearly exposes her ulterior motives and schemes in getting married to the Petitioner.

27. The Petitioner denies paragraph 16(b) of the Cross Petition and avers that apart from the fact that he already has a chauffer, the Petitioner had purchased for the Respondent two brand new cars during the marriage which the Respondent still holds on to till this day. The cars are:

(i) BMW 3 Series car

(ii) Toyota Highlander Sports Utility vehicle

28. The Petitioner denies paragraph 16(c) of the Cross Petition and avers that No. 8 Ladipo Bateye Street, GRA Ikeja belongs to a company in which he is a director and the Petitioner is merely a tenant paying his rent as and when due.

29. Further to paragraph (17) above, the Petitioner avers that the request for N50 million to be used by the Respondent to purchase a house using the children as an excuse knowing fully well that he, the Petitioner, does not even own such a house and does not own such funds, further exposes the gold digging intentions of the Respondent in entering into marriage with the Petitioner and illuminates the Respondent’s true intention for all to see.

30 The Petitioner avers in reference to paragraph 16(d) of the Cross Petition that he has always made and will continue to make adequate private security arrangements for the children, moreover as they would be in his custody.

31. The Petitioner admits paragraph 16(d) of the Cross Petition to the effect that the Respondent has no decent home to live in and even the Respondent’s parents home is not conducive as the children whenever they leave his custody to the Respondent’s custody are forced to squat with the Respondent’s parents.

32. The Petitioner denies paragraph 16(d) (iv) of the Cross Petition and avers that No. 8 Ladipo Bateye Street, GRA Ikeja is not “the family house” as stated by the Respondent.

33. In furtherance of (31) above, the Petitioner avers that the Respondent made no financial contribution whatsoever to No. 8 Ladipo Bateye Street, GRA, Ikeja and did not supervise any construction process or make any design decisions as the house does not even belong to him.

34. The Petitioner denies paragraph 16(e) (i) and 16(e) (ii) of the Cross Petition and states that he has no desire to send his children to any school outside of Nigeria for their education and intends to have them school at Bells Secondary School which is a high quality school run by his family, and the University of Ibadan, his own alma mater for their tertiary education.

35. Further to paragraph 23 above, the Petitioner avers that the demand by the Respondent for the sums started in paragraph 15(c) of the Cross Petition is an unfortunate and sad attempt to exhort money from him in the name of the children.

36. The Petitioner specifically denies the averment in paragraph 16(f) and 16(g) of the Cross Petition and puts the Respondent to strict proof of same.

37. Further to paragraph 32 above, the Petitioner avers that apart from never contributing to payment of rent at No. 8 Ladipo Bateye Street, GRA Ikeja, the Respondent never contributed financially to anything in the home. The Petitioner further avers that the Respondent’s morals and conducts leaves a whole lot to be desired and the Respondent was a hindrance and a drawback to the progress of the Petitioner rather than them an asset or an assistance and the Petitioner would have made much more progress in life but for the physical and psychological trauma he was subjected to as a result of having the Respondent as his wife.

38. The Petitioner denies paragraph 17(b) of the Cross Petition and avers that the capability of the Respondent to earn income is not made low due to the children needing her attention as the children have a full complement of domestic staff, but because the Respondent is lazy and unwilling to earn a decent living and rather prefers to exhort money from the Petitioner for her every need and when same is not forthcoming, commit adultery to obtain same.

39. The Petitioner denies paragraph 17(c) and 19 of the cross Petition and puts the Respondent to strict proof of same.

40. The Petitioner denies paragraph 18 of the Cross Petition and avers that he has always and still is responsible for payment of salaries of the children’s domestic staff.

41. The Petitioner denies paragraph 20(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (h), (i) of the Cross Petition and puts the Respondent to strict proof of the averments therein.

42. The Petitioner admits paragraph 20(f) of the Cross Petition only to he extent that Health Aids Support Services, an HIV/AIDS consulting firm, belongs to him and he contributes to the fight against HIV/AIDS scourge through the company.

43. The Petitioner admits paragraph 20 (j) of the Cross Petition only to the extent that both companies are owned by him and are both long moribund and do not exist or function in any form at all.

44. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent recently executed contracts with the Ogun State Government by obtaining a concession of the Ogun State Liaison Office in Lagos using her company, Royal Properties Limited, and made several millions of Naira therefrom.

45. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent also Co-owns a bitumen factory on Sagamu road in Ogun State with Colonel Are, retired Director General of the State Security Service (SSS) with massive concessions from the Ogun State Government.

46. The Petitioner avers that the Respondent owns a property in London and one in the United State of America located at Houston, Texas, with address as 14411 Andrea Way Lane (Sugarland).

47. The Petitioner further to paragraphs (31) and (32) above, avers that the averments in paragraph 20(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), of the Cross Petition are a figment of the Respondent’s imagination, an attempt to blackmail him and a failed attempt to provide a platform for the justification of the gold digging financial demands hitherto made by the Respondent in this suit. 

48. The Petitioner denies paragraph 21(b) of the Cross Petition and avers that the Respondent has entrenched in her imagination, a fantasy filled summation of how she expects him to earn his income.

49. The Petitioner denies paragraph 22, 23 and 24 of the Cross Petition and puts the Respondent to strict proof thereof.

50. The Petitioner denies paragraph 27 of the Cross Petition in its entirety and avers that same is an elaborate gold digging scheme carefully plotted by the Respondent ever before she got married to him till the present day.