Shock in Anambra court as doctor previously granted bail in March is accused of a child theft repeat offence just weeks later

[dropcap]A[/dropcap] shocking child theft repeat offence has rocked Anambra State after a 72-year-old doctor and two women were remanded in custody for allegedly stealing and selling a seven-year-old boy—barely weeks after the doctor was granted bail for a similar crime.

Also read: Dr. Emmanuel Ugwumba arrested for child trafficking and forgery in Enugu

The accused, Dr Daniel Ikebuilo, along with Ifunanya Ogbonna, 23, and Chidiogo Ogbonna, 20, pleaded not guilty to a five-count charge of conspiracy, child stealing, illegal dealings, and trafficking of a minor.

The Anambra State Children, Sexual and Gender-based Violence Offences Court in Awka, presided over by Chief Magistrate U.E. Onochie, ordered their remand at the Awka Correctional Centre pending a bail ruling set for 13 August.

Prosecutor Chinyere Okechukwu told the court that the offence took place on 30 April at Okpoko, Onitsha. The women allegedly lured the child from his mother, Kosarachukwu Okpala, and sold him to Dr Ikebuilo for ₦700,000.

“He later re-sold the boy for ₦2.3 million,” Ms Okechukwu told the court.

What makes the case more disturbing is that both Ifunanya and Dr Ikebuilo were previously arraigned on 5 March for similar offences.

According to the prosecution, after securing bail in that case, they went on to steal another child the following month.

“This is a clear abuse of the judicial system and a grave threat to public safety,” said Okechukwu. “The court must treat this matter with utmost seriousness.”

The prosecution stated that their actions contravened Sections 495(a) and 321 of the Criminal Code of Anambra State (1991, as amended), Section 31(1)(4) of the Child Rights Law (2004), and Section 15(1) of the Violence Against Persons Prohibition and Protection Law (2017).

The courtroom was filled with visible tension as the details unfolded. Many present expressed disbelief that individuals previously granted bail could return so quickly to committing the same crime.

A mother in the public gallery whispered, “This could have been my child.”

Rights advocates are now calling for stricter bail conditions for suspects in child-related crimes and a broader review of how repeat offenders are monitored.

The court’s next sitting will determine whether the defendants will be granted a second round of bail or face trial while in custody.

Public attention remains sharply focused on how the judiciary will respond to this troubling offence, which has again exposed the vulnerability of minors in the state.

The case is being closely followed by human rights groups, the Child Protection Network, and security agencies, who are demanding swift justice.