The Davido son’s death has been a very painful and dicey case and although seemingly simple to conclude with all the evidence. It’s yet difficult because we’re talking about the high and mighty here, A powerful family.

 

 

 

 

 

But there’s something to talk about and no it’s not about the Nollywood actor who claims that Davido sacrificed his son for a Halloween illuminati ritual. Quiet absurd if you ask me.

But let’s try and understand this and see that power isn’t used wrongly to torture people. first since the police autopsy results confirmed that the adorable boy died from drowning. This also means indeed the CCTV footage might have been seen too.

Then why has the process and investigation with the cook and nanny being in custody not been completed? As the cook is seemingly not taking much faults here but the nanny. Of course for her negligence.

The answers lies in the Alleged cover up being rumoured to be done by the Adeleke family. And the rules that govern death due to negligence.

According to an investigative journalists, Kemi Olunloyo, sources have it that the nanny’s family members are pointing out that the nanny reportedly spoke up whilst being questioned that she didn’t see the boy dead.

Meaning that although it is true he was found in the water, being unconscious, there was indication of life and probably got stabilized. Maybe that was the reason the romours that he was alive went viral. But with recent video of David’s swollen face, one would say otherwise.

However at the moment, the nanny’s family and others who’s relatives still in custody are crying out over a case of extreme torture and show of power. So this has to boil down to the laws that govern what the punishment for negligence that led to death, should be.

They all have to pass through the four points below to be found guilty:

Duty: The attorney fighting for the victim must successfully prove that the individual owed a “duty of care” to your loved one.

Breach: The attorney must prove that the duty to the victims was breached by the accused.

Cause: The attorney must prove that the accused must have caused the death of the victim.

Damage: In order to be found negligent, an individual must be able to prove that he or she was damaged by the accused wrongful actions that led to death of a loved one.

As much as we sympathize with the Davido family none of the above seems to fall under Criminal negligence which falls under drunk driving, malfunctioned products and can get up to 10 yrs in prison.

Also it’s not gross negligence manslaughter since there was not direct link to the boy’s death, e.g like the death of an innocent by a policeman, a doctor etc. So the question surrounding the nanny’s claims of her not seeing the boy dead, is it true?