Contrary to the media reportage on the paternity tussle between a business mogul and former Chairman of defunct Skye Bank Plc, Mr Tunde Ayeni and his ex-mistress, an Abuja-based lawyer, Adaobi Alagwu, where he publicly denied fathering a girl child, a DNA Test has now revealed that Ayeni is the biological father of Adaobi’s daughter, Omarosa Abimbola Ayeni.
This fresh information was disclosed in a Counter Affidavit filed by Adaobi against a suit by Ayeni before a Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Customary Court in Dawaki, Abuja, following alleged paternity dispute over the baby girl.
It is instructive to note that Ayeni had filed the instant suit before the Customary Court. He is also denying the paternity of the baby girl while the court has fixed February 17, 2025 for the definite hearing of the matter.
In his statement of claim, Ayeni is further asking the court to take a judicial notice of the fact that he is not the father of the said child referred to as “X” in the suit.
But Adaobi in her response to Ayeni’s complaint, stated that the DNA Test, conducted by the Diagnostic Centre in the United Kingdom at the DDC, 1st Floor, WeWork, 184 Shepereds Bush Road, London. W67NIL, revealed that Ayeni is the biological father of the baby girl.
The Counter Affidavit was filed on February 13, 2025 while the document was stamped and acknowledged by the Customary Court on February 14, 2025.
The Counter Affidavit reads in part, “Paragraph 1 of the complaint is admitted only to the extent that customary dowry for a marriage between the complainant and the Respondent was paid in 2022. The complainant professed to the respondent that he was married under native law and custom and therefore eligible to get married to her.
“The marriage has a child born on 21st June, 2022 and named Baby Ayeni as a pseudonym in this proceeding, for the purpose of protecting the dignity and privacy of the minor.
“Baby Ayeni was born on the date aforestated in the United States of America during the subsistence of the marriage between the complainant and respondent.
“The complainant who is also known as J.O. Ayeni gave Baby Ayeni, her first, middle and surname, which she bears till date. The complainant, John Olatunde Ayeni, is acknowledged as the father of Baby Ayeni in her birth certificate.
“The complainant, John Olatunde Ayeni, is also acknowledged in the Birth Register of the State of California as the father of Baby Ayeni.
Naming Baby Ayeni and the municipal registrations referred to above were all done by the complainant’s conscious decision.
“In the course of the marriage, the complainant and his wife, Mrs. Abiola Ayeni, began a desperate campaign of calumny against the Respondent and Baby Ayeni on various mainstream and online social media platforms.
“In the said media publications, the complainant denied paternity of Baby Ayeni amongst other spurious claims. Despite settled biological ties of the complainant as Baby Ayeni’s Father, he proposed and arranged in cahoots with his wife for a deoxyribonucleic acid (“DNA”) test to confirm the paternity of Baby Ayeni beyond any shred of doubt.
“They chose the DDC, DNA Diagnostic Centre, 26- 28 Hammersmith Grove, London, W6 7BA and only invited the Respondent to show up with Baby Ayeni for the exercise.
“The DNA test was carried out on – April,
2023 after specimen were duly taken from the complainant, John Olatunde Ayeni and Baby Ayeni in the presence of the said complainant’s wife.
“Further to the above, and following a demand for email addresses for posting of the DNA test report, the respondent dutifully provided her’s while the complainant’s wife elected to provide her own email address in lieu of the complainant personally so doing.
“The Respondent later received the DNA Test Report with Ref. No. 05167 showing a probability of 99.9999997 % that John Olatunde Ayeni is Baby Ayeni’s biological father.
“Following issuance of the DNA test report, the complainant and his wife intensified their frenzied denigrating social media attacks on the Respondent and Baby Ayeni.
“In the said social media publications, the complainant, contrary to the scientific evidence issued by the DNA Facility personally engaged by him for consideration, blatantly denies Baby Ayeni’s paternity.
“The complairant’s publications indude a document called “Cease and Desist”withdrawal of consent for use of Family name, John Olatunde Ayeni” letter to the Respondent by the Law Firm of Dele Adesina dated February 12, 2024.
“This letter was never served on the Respondent personally but trended
widely on the internet. Other or similar publications were published by Thisday Live of April 2, 2024, Thisday Live of January
4, 2025, Punch Newspaper of August 7, 2023,
Freedom Online of January 4, 2025, Sahara Reporters of March 14, 2023, Gistlover.com of March 14, 2023 to mention but a few. The Respondent downloaded some of the publications from the internet.
“The complainant’s ground for maintaining his absurd denials is that the DNA result is incorrect because the Respondent tampered with the process by hacking into his wife’s email to manipulate the process. The respondent denies this claim as it is spurious and without foundation.
“The DC DNA Diagnostics Centre is a foremost accredited/certified reputable DNA Centre. They are described as world leaders in DNA testing on the internet.
“In the face of the deluge of the complainants’ smear campaign targeting the Respondent, she maintained a dignified silence. This was
until January 2025 when the Respondent’s Solicitors, Indemnity Partners, addressed letters dated January 20, 2025 and January 28, 2025 to the complainant and the law Firm of Dele Adesina respectively.
“In the January 20, 2025 Respondent’s Solicitors letter to the complainant, he was challenged to apply to the London
DNA Centre to re-issue the DNA Report, or better still to arrange for another DNA test in another reputable scientific centre.
“The Respondent is responsible for the care and custody of Baby Ayeni. The Respondent counterclaims on behalf of herself and Baby Ayeni. The complainant is knowingly refusing to acknowledge Baby Ayeni as his biological child contrary to the scientific evidence by the DNA Test, common sense and the law
“The Respondent is therefore asking the court to declare that the complainant is the biological father of Baby Ayeni born on June 21, 2022 during the subsistence of the marriage between him and the Respondent.”
In a related development, the DNA Test, which was sighted last night by the online medium, was titled: “DNA Test Report” with Reference No 0Z5167 and Case No 3816147. It was signed by the Centre’s Laboratory Director, Joy Johnson PhD.
The DNA Report further disclosed that the test was done on the mother – Adaobi Jennifer Alagwu, the child – Omarosa Abimbola Ayeni and the alleged father – John Olatunde Ayeni.
According to the report , “ The test was conducted on April 11, 2023.
Probability of Paternity
Interpretation: Combined Paternity Index – 491,708,045.
Probability of Paternity- 99.9999997%
The DNA Report further states that, “ The alleged father is not excluded as the biological father of the tested child. Based on testing results obtained from analyses of the DNA loci tested, the probability of paternity is – 99.9999997%.
“This probability is calculated by comparing to an untested, unrelated, random individual of the Black population (assumes prior probability equals 050).
Note: One possible mutation was observed. The mutation frequency was included in the calculation of the probability of paternity.
This paternity calculation does not take into consideration any biological relatives of the alleged father. “
But Ayeni had on more more than three occasions, denied being the father of Omarosa and went ahead to write a letter to the Nigerian Immigration Service (NIS), asking it to invalidate any international passport bearing his name as presented by Adaobi and her child.
Ayeni also issued a “Cease and Desist” notice, demanding that Adaobi should stop using his name in connection with her child, insisting that he only has three children with his legitimate wife, Mrs. Abiola Ayeni.
Though Ayeni denied the paternity claim in a statement made available in March 2023, he confirmed that he was in a relationship with the Abuja-based lawyer, saying that his relationship with Adaobi ended in 2019.
Ayeni had also through his lawyer, Dele Adesina (SAN), sent a legal notice to Adaobi entitled , “Withdrawal of Consent for Use of the Family Name ‘Ayeni’ With Respect To Your Daughter Omarosa.”
Incidentally, wife of the businessman, Mrs Abiola Ayeni, also claimed in several interviews that God revealed to her that her husband never fathered a child with the ex-beauty queen.
Ayeni also swore to an affidavit disavowing any connection with Adaobi’s daughter, Omarosa, and has formally withdrawn any consent for the child to bear his family name.
Concerted efforts to get the reactions from both Ayeni and Adaobi on the matter proved abortive as several calls to their phones were unsuccessful at press time.
Meanwhile, Tunde Ayeni, has filed a legal action before an Abuja Customary Court against an Abuja-based lawyer , Ms Adaobi Alagwu, following alleged paternity dispute over a child given birth to by Adaobi.
Tunde Ayeni is denying the paternity of the baby girl, saying that he is not the father of the said child referred to as “X” in the suit.
When the matter came up on Tuesday, lawyer to Ayeni , Silas Onu applied to withdraw the earlier suit on the grounds of improper service.
Following the striking out of the first suit, Onu informed the court that a fresh petition had been filed before the court based on the same subject and same properly served on Adaobi
Lawyer to Adaobi also confirmed receipt of service of the suit and apologized to the court for the absence of her client in court.
He further stated that Adaobi is still within time to file her defence.
At this point, the court asked Adaobi’s lawyer whether he is denying that the sum paid by Ayeni to Adaobi family has not been refunded to the complainant.
The lawyer, however, answered that the said money has been refunded but added they are yet to file their defence.
Adjourning the matter, the court stressed that Adaobi should serve all the process of her reply on the complainant and that parties should be in court at the next adjourned date for trial .
The court later adjourned the matter till February 17 for the hearing of the suit.
