Ethnic hate peddler, Adeyinka Grandson’s road to prison plus his marital and other UK woes

Ethnic hate peddler, Adeyinka Grandson’s road to prison plus his marital and other UK woes

Adeyinka Grandson, a self-styled Yoruba nation agitator, is currently serving a four-and-a-half-year jail term upon his conviction by a London court in April 2022, for encouraging racial hatred and violence in Nigeria using inflammatory messages via his social media posts. 

During the period that Adeyinka Shoyemi, popularly known as Adeyinka Grandson, consistently made hateful comments on various social media platforms, inciting ethnic hatred in Nigeria, he was also grappling with a convoluted web of dreary family and immigration troubles.

Mr Shoyemi, who is currently serving a four-and-a-half-year jail term, was sentenced by Southwark Crown Court in Central London, the United Kingdom, in April 2022, for encouraging racial hatred and violence in Nigeria using inflammatory messages via his social media posts.

Before then, an Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) had ordered his deportation to Nigeria after overstaying in the UK and due to his inability to prove that he had any family life in the UK.

Mr Shoyemi, a self-styled Yoruba nation agitator, moved to the UK in 2007 on a visitor’s visa. His partner at the time (now ex-wife) was also in the UK on the same type of visa.

By October of the same year, their visas had expired and they had overstayed.

They applied for a visa extension but it was refused.

‘Difficult separation’ and immigration troubles

The couple stayed in the UK and had two kids in July 2008 and October 2010 respectively. The duo later went through a “difficult separation” according to court documents seen by PREMIUM TIMES.

Following the separation between Mr Shoyemi and his ex-wife, he was granted a one year leave (August 2017-August 2018) on the grounds of Article 8 ECHR.

A case between Mr Shoyemi and the secretary of state for the home department, heard before an upper tribunal judge, Pitt, highlighted some of the troubles he had been facing.

“The appellant applied for further leave but this was refused on 20 May 2019 in the decision that forms the basis of these proceedings. The application was refused, in part, as by that time the appellant was permitted only indirect contact with his children,” the court document said.

This meant that Mr Shoyemi would have to return to Nigeria as he had overstayed in the UK and no longer had any ties in the country since he now had only indirect contact with his kids after separation from his ex-wife.

“I find that the appellant does not have a family life in the UK, either with his new partner and her son or his biological children but he does enjoy a private life with his new partner,” a first-tier tribunal judge said.

The judge added that indirect contact with his biological children was ordered by the family court due to his conduct; though he might be trying to change. The judge added, “it is clear that his actions have led him to where he is now, and that has resulted in limited links with his biological children that can be continued in Nigeria.”

Mr Shoyemi proceeded to appeal the refusal at the First-tier Tribunal. The appeal was heard by First-tier Tribunal Judge Hone on January 5, 2021.

At the hearing, he argued that a relationship with a new partner, Sibongile Masiya, and her son, Adlai, who was a British national, provided grounds for him to remain in the UK.

‘No genuine marriage status’

The judge found that Mr Shoyemi’s relationship with Ms Masiya did not amount to a genuine relationship akin to marriage.

The tribunal also did not find that Mr Shoyemi had a “genuine and subsisting parental relationship with Adlai and therefore concluded that paragraph 117B(6) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) was not met.”

“First whether the appellant had a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with Adlai Masiya, if he does then the Appellant submitted that he should be granted leave to remain as the child is a British citizen, his mother a right to reside in the UK and it would be in his best interest to remain in the UK with the Appellant under Section 117B(6) of the 2002 Act. I find that he does not have a parental relationship with his partner’s son,” the tribunal said.

The tribunal added that “he does have a relationship with the child’s mother.” It also said “this relationship is not the equivalent of marriage,” adding that they have separate houses, though stay with each other regularly.

“I find that this amounts to a relationship but does not amount to a relationship akin to marriage. It is clear that they share some costs on a casual basis but the majority of this is for visits to the cinema or meals out, not showing household costs.

“I find that they do not share day to day household costs, and the sharing of costs they do does not suggest they share a closer relationship. I also find that there is not family life. There is a private life, but this does not extend to a family life. I accept that they have been in a relationship since 2018.

“I also find that the Appellant does not have parental responsibility for his partner’s child. He does take her to school and carry out his partner’s instructions, but I do not find that this shows any reasonability on his part.

“Though I accept they have a friendship and there is clear affection between them, on the evidence I have before me I do not find that it extends to a parental relationship. As an example, I find that the fact that the Appellant drops the child at school or helps with some classes, is at the direction of the child’s mother and under her control and does not amount to parental control. I also find that the son relies on his mother for parental support and not the Appellant. On that basis I find that Section 117(6) is not met,” the judge said, stating reasons why Mr Shoyemi cannot be allowed to remain in the UK.

The judge also noted that the relationship with Ms Masiya began “while the Appellant had a precarious immigration status in the UK, and the Appellant was keenly aware of this fact,” adding that Mr Shoyemi had significant periods of being an overstayer.

In the September 2021 ruling, the judge said Mr Shoyemi’s deportation to Nigeria would be proportional to all the best interests of the children in his life, as well as proportional to his other human rights.

“Weighing up the two sides of the balance sheet I find that the factors in favour of dismissing the appeal outweigh the factors put forward by Appellant. In particular, I consider the need to continue Appellant’s current private life is outweighed by the need to maintain proportional Immigration Rules,” the judge said.

The judge ruled that he could continue to enjoy his private life with Ms Masiya and her child via electronic communication methods, “which they are clearly adapted with, and though this is different from their current situation it is proportionate when considering all the factors.”

Mr Shoyemi’s road to prison

Mr Shoyemi, 45, of Powis Terrace in Notting Hill, first came to the attention of counter-terror police in March 2019 after members of the public tipped them off about the posts targeting particular ethnic groups in Nigeria.

The messages, posted by accounts under the name ‘Adeyinka Grandson’, were assessed by a specialist group of officers in the Met’s Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit (CTIRU).

They found that the posts, which had commentary encouraging attacks against certain ethnic groups, were in potential breach of the law and launched a probe.

He was first arrested at his home address in August 2019, with officers searching three properties linked to him and seizing various digital devices.

Mr Shoyemi was initially charged with six counts of inciting racial hatred and he was released on bail with a condition not to post any more social media posts which were threatening, abusive or insulting to any ethnic groups.

But he flouted his bail conditions and was rearrested.

He was found guilty on November 30 of eight counts of inciting racial hatred after a trial at Southwark Crown Court, PREMIUM TIMES reported.

Chiamaka Okafor is a reporter at Premium Times in partnership with Report for the World, which matches local newsrooms with talented emerging journalists to report on under-covered issues around the globe.

CREDIT: Premium Times

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *