Mr Oluwaleke G Sokunbi

Preliminary Matters
Hearing in Private

1. Ms Welsh on behalf of the HCPC applied to have parts of this hearing conducted in private under Rule 10(1) of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003, which sets out the “open justice” principle and states that: “proceedings shall be held in public unless the Committee is satisfied that, in the interests of justice or for the protection of the private life of the health professional … the public should be excluded from all or part of the hearing”.
2. In addition, the HCPC referred to the HCPTS Practice Note on Conducting Hearings in Private. The Panel has a discretion to conduct parts of the hearing in private. There are two broad circumstances in which all or part of a hearing may be held in private: where it is in the interests of justice to do so, or where it is done in order to protect the private life of the Applicant, the complainant, a witness or service user. References may be made regarding the Applicant’s health and private life in the course of this hearing. The HCPC submitted that those health matters are capable of being considered in private, to protect the private life of the Applicant. The HCPC submitted that this hearing should be held partly in private, for the protection of the private life of the Applicant.
3. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice to consider the relevant HCPTS Practice Note. The Panel decided that this hearing should be held partly in private to protect the private life of the Applicant, due to the health matters which were likely to be raised.
Service
4. The Panel must be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to serve the Notice of Hearing on the Applicant. On 9 February 2023, the HCPTS sent the Notice of Hearing to the Applicant’s registered email address and produced a delivery receipt the same day. The Notice of Hearing advised the Applicant of the date and purpose of the hearing, and that it would take place virtually on 12 and 13 April 2023. The Notice of Hearing notified the Applicant of his ability to attend and participate remotely. On 9 February 2023, the Applicant responded and confirmed he would be attending the hearing virtually and connecting via a laptop. Therefore, it is submitted that the Applicant has been given sufficient notice of the proceedings. The HCPC submitted that good service had taken place and the Applicant had been notified of the date and time of the hearing.
5. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice that the Notice of Hearing was properly served in accordance with the Conduct and Competence Committee Rules. The Panel found that the Notice of Hearing was served on 9 February 2023 by sending it to the Applicant by email. The Notice advised him that the application hearing would be conducted today, remotely.
Proceeding in absence
6. The Applicant did not attend this hearing. In accordance with the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Proceeding in Absence; the Panel firstly considered whether notice of the proceedings had been served on the Applicant and decided that it had been.
7. The Panel secondly considered all the circumstances of the case with regard to the HCPC’s application to proceed in the absence of the Applicant, balancing fairness to the Applicant with fairness to the HCPC and the interests of the public.
8. The HCPC applied to have this matter heard in the Applicant’s absence under Rule 11 of the Health Professions Council (Conduct and Competence Committee) (Procedure) Rules 2003. The HCPC invited the Panel to consider in particular:
i. The general public interest, in the fair, economical and expeditious hearing of cases.
ii. Hearings should only be adjourned on health grounds where there is a compelling reason to do so; preferably supported by medical evidence.
iii. The nature and circumstances of the Applicant’s absence, whether the absence may be deliberate and voluntary and thus a waiver of the right to appear.
iv. Whether an adjournment is likely to result in the Applicant attending at a later date.
v. The extent of the disadvantage to the Applicant in not being able to give evidence having regard to the nature of the case.
vi. The likely length of any such adjournment.
vii. Whether the Applicant wishes to be represented at the hearing.
viii. That the hearing is as fair as the circumstances permit.
9. On 31 March 2023, the HCPC case manager sent an email to the Applicant and explained that there was an outstanding payment due from the Applicant under a High Court costs Order, following dismissal of his appeal in March 2013 against the original panel’s decision. The email stated that the costs were never paid and asked for confirmation of this. On 11 April 2023, the Applicant replied as follows: “I am so sorry I will not be able to attend the hearing as scheduled commencing from tomorrow. I do sincerely apologise for any inconvenience this will cause”.
10. The HCPC case manager responded shortly afterwards, to confirm that the HCPC considered this was a formal adjournment request and providing a copy of the relevant Practice Notes on Proceeding in Absence and Adjournment. The HCPC case manager requested evidence to support such an application, so that the Panel could consider whether to adjourn the hearing.
11. The Applicant had not responded when the hearing commenced on 12 April 2023. The Panel considered whether to proceed in the absence of the Applicant. He had confirmed that he received the Notice of Hearing but stated in an email dated 11 April 2023 that he was unable to attend.
12. The HCPC submitted that the Panel should consider whether there is a compelling reason to adjourn this hearing, or whether the Panel should proceed in the Applicant’s absence. The latest email from the Applicant dated 12 April 2023 at 22:36 hrs, stated he no longer wished to attend the hearing and was content for the Panel to proceed in his absence.
13. The Panel accepted the advice of the Legal Assessor to consider the HCPTS Practice Notes on Proceeding in Absence and Postponement and Adjournment.
14. The Panel determined that the Registrant could not realistically produce medical evidence on the morning of the first day of the hearing, but that it would be realistic for him to provide such evidence by 9am on the second day of the hearing (listed on 13 April 2023) because he stated he would be seeing a doctor on 12 April. The hearing was adjourned part heard on 12 April to resume the following day.
15. The Applicant provided further information in advance of the resumed hearing on day two, 13 April, stating that his health has improved. He confirmed by email that he did not wish to attend the hearing and he is content for the Panel to proceed in his absence. He provided some further written information in support of his application and did not request any further adjournment of the hearing.
16. The background to this hearing is that the Applicant has been struck off the HCPC Register for fraudulent and dishonest behaviour. He has made an application for restoration without paying the substantial costs outstanding to the HCPC arising from his unsuccessful High Court appeal. Upon being confronted with that information he initially replied that he is no longer attending for health reasons. After being requested to supply medical evidence showing that he is unable to attend the hearing due to ill health, he updated the Panel by stating he wished the Panel to proceed in his absence.
17. The Panel decided the hearing should proceed as scheduled. The restoration application is opposed. The Panel will be able to scrutinise the case and submissions. The Panel finds the Applicant has waived his right to attend this hearing. No unfairness will occur if the hearing proceeds in his absence. The Panel has been provided with the information the Applicant has submitted to support his application and the Applicant will not suffer any prejudice by the Panel proceeding in his absence.
Original Allegation:
As amended
During the course of your practise as a Physiotherapist, you:
1. Made false statements that you worked in the Sportswise Clinic at Brighton University between November/December 2006 to November 2007 whilst applying for posts as a Physiotherapist at Warwickshire Primary Care Trust and Worcestershire Primary Care Trust
2. Created and sent false employment history forms to Warwickshire PCT whilst applying for a post as a Physiotherapist at Warwickshire Primary Care Trust
3. Forged signatures of your former academic supervisors at Brighton University, Peter Watt and Professor Ann Moore whilst applying for a post as a Physiotherapist at Warwickshire Primary Care Trust
4. Failed to disclose that you were the subject of a live fraud investigation when seeking agency work
5. Made a false declaration to Lagos University that you were ill whilst working in Wolverhampton
6. Deceived Atos Origin into giving you compassionate leave in May 2010, when you were working elsewhere in the UK on the same dates
7. Gained a salary from Atos Origin for May 2010 whilst working elsewhere
8. Your actions at paragraphs 1-7 were dishonest
9. The matters set out in paragraphs 1-8 constitute misconduct
10. By reason of that misconduct, your fitness to practice is impaired.
Facts Proved: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8
Facts Not Proved: 4
Grounds: Misconduct
Fitness to Practise Impaired: Yes
Sanction: Striking-off
Background
18. The Panel is considering an application for restoration to the Register under Article 33(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 by Mr Oluwaleke G Sokunbi (“the Applicant”).
19. The burden of proof is on the Applicant to demonstrate that he firstly: meets the general requirements for an Applicant; and secondly, is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession having regard to the particular circumstances which led to his striking off from the Register.
20. The Applicant was an HCPC registered Physiotherapist. He applied for a bank Physiotherapist post at Warwickshire Primary Care Trust (“Warwickshire”) in August 2010 and was offered the post in October 2010. Upon checking the information he provided, concerns were raised as to the veracity of the employment history forms he had submitted. A number of faxes were received by Warwickshire within the space of an hour purporting to be from the Applicant’s former employers/referees but which appeared to be false. The Applicant did not take up the post at Warwickshire.
21. In December 2010, the Applicant secured a permanent post at Worcestershire Primary Care Trust (“Worcestershire”). It was alleged that whilst applying for both the Warwickshire and Worcestershire posts, the Applicant had indicated that he worked for the Sportswise Clinic in Brighton, which was allegedly untrue. It was also alleged that he appeared to have forged the signatures of two former academic supervisors on his documentation for the Warwickshire post. A joint investigation was commenced in February 2011 by both Trusts.
22. The Warwickshire investigator was RL and the Worcestershire investigator was JD. The Applicant took a period of unpaid leave from Worcestershire. It later came to light that whilst under investigation and on unpaid leave, he had applied to various agencies to work as a locum and may not have disclosed to the agencies that he was under investigation. The Applicant was interviewed under caution in February 2011, by RL and JD.
23. It was also alleged that in December 2008, the Applicant had informed Lagos University, where he had been appointed as a Lecturer, that he had suffered a stroke; when he had in fact been working at Wolverhampton Primary Care Trust at the time. It was further alleged that whilst working for ATOS Healthcare a health care provider, the Applicant had requested compassionate leave between 5-24 May 2010, for which he was paid a salary. Investigations concluded that during this period, he was in fact working at Southend University Hospital, via an agency.
24. On 19 July 2012 the final hearing panel found the evidence of both investigators was compelling, balanced and persuasive. They had clearly carried out a thorough investigation. The Applicant did not attend the final hearing, and provided a written response in which he denied all the particulars. The panel accepted the evidence before it and found all the facts proved on the balance of probabilities with the exception of particular 4. The panel considered that the Applicant’s actions amounted to misconduct, that is, conduct falling far below an expected professional standard and that he departed from the fundamental requirements for a healthcare professional to be honest, trustworthy and to carry out work with integrity. The Applicant made false statements regarding previous experience, forged signatures and gave Lagos University the false impression that he was unwell, when he was in fact working for an agency during a period of compassionate leave. The Applicant made financial gains from his dishonesty, by securing work at Worcestershire and time off on compassionate grounds whilst earning money from agency work.
25. There were breaches of the HCPC Standards of Conduct Performance and Ethics, namely:
a. Standard 3 – you must keep high standards of personal conduct.
b. Standard 13 – you must behave with honesty and integrity.
26. The panel concluded that the Applicant was impaired on both the personal and public components and noted:
a. The established facts and misconduct are very serious, involving repeated instances of outright dishonesty for financial gain which had a negative and subsisting effect.
b. The Applicant’s response demonstrated a complete denial of the serious issues proved against him, and no insight whatsoever.
c. His misconduct was not easily remediable and there was no evidence that it had been remedied.
d. A high risk of recurrence means the panel could not be confident that the Applicant would behave with honesty or integrity in the future.
e. The damage to public confidence; members of the public would find it difficult to trust the Applicant as he had chosen to submit false information and taken dishonest steps, such as forging signatures for personal financial gain.
f. A need to maintain confidence in the profession; that those treating the public have been recruited on accurate information and are honest and trustworthy, which did not apply to the Applicant.
g. The Applicant’s actions brought the profession into disrepute and were directly connected to professional rather than personal matters.
h. His behaviour was wholly unacceptable and undermined the proper standards expected and the need to maintain confidence in the regulatory process and protection of the public.
27. The final hearing panel considered the mitigating factors in the Applicant’s case to be:
• Absence of any clinical lack of competence;
• Referees were happy to provide references if asked;
• Evidence of some ill health and financial difficulty at the time of his mothers’ death, when he carried out work whilst on compassionate leave.
28. Due to the need to uphold public confidence and the reputation of the profession and the regulatory process and given the very serious findings of misconduct and other circumstances of the case, a striking off order was the only appropriate and proportionate sanction.
Recent developments
29. On 6 July 2022, the Applicant applied for re-admission and restoration to the HCPC Register. On 31 August 2022, the HCPC case manager responded and provided further information regarding the restoration process, and requirements. On 14 September 2022, the Applicant responded and stated that he was going to submit his application in late October, as he was unable to raise the required amount for two years registration with the HCPC. He stated: “I am an academic member of staff in Nigeria University and the staff have been on industrial action in the past couple of months with no salary payment for more than 5 months. I will be able to raise the required amount by end of next month (October)”.
30. On 29 September 2022, the HCPC wrote back to the Applicant and clarified the timeline for when registration fees would be due, and for a restoration hearing to be scheduled. The case manager requested written submissions and evidence, and the Applicant responded and provided further information on 3 October 2022.
31. On 31 March 2023, the HCPC case manager wrote to the Applicant and explained that there is an outstanding payment due from the Applicant under a High Court costs Order for £10,354.20, following dismissal of his appeal on 5 March 2013. The case manager confirmed that there was no record of the Applicant paying these costs and sought confirmation from the Applicant. He responded as follows: “I was not been able to pay till ilet (sic) UK due to my financial incapacitation following the dismissal”. The HCPC case manager wrote back to confirm that the HCPC records were accurate and the costs remained unpaid. The Applicant responded that day and confirmed this was correct.
The Application
32. The Panel received an application for re-admission to Register form and a statement dated 3 October 2022 which stated the Applicant accepts full responsibility for his action. He has provided additional information by email.
33. The Applicant was working in the UK from 2010 while his children were staying with an uncle of his in Nigeria. He was working as a Locum Physiotherapist for two years to earn money and send it home to look after his children and other members of his extended family. The money was being diverted from his children’s upkeep, which made him desperate to have his children with him. In order to do so he needed a more stable source of income than locum work. He subsequently applied for a permanent job was interviewed, and references were requested. He states “I got carried away with this and wanted to submit my references letters across almost the same day I was asked. I had thought the earlier I submitted my reference letters, the earlier I would start the job and then be able to get my children with me in the UK. This is what prompted me to put up my own references myself and submitted the same without informing my supervisors. I had thought informing my supervisors and obtaining their responses would take a longer time and I might lose the job.”
34. The Applicant had successfully completed his PhD degree from the University of Brighton and submitted references under his supervisors’ names. The Applicant states that after he was struck off, he took “wrong actions to facilitate my readmission due to ill-advice from friends and colleagues…I have to return to Nigeria to look after my children…it was difficult…but eventually I was able to get a teaching job in the University of Maiduguri after I carefully explained the situation… I was offered a probationary appointment as a senior lecturer at the department of Medical Rehabilitation (Physiotherapy) of the University of Maiduguri in 2013”.
35. In 2015 he was appointed an Associate Professor of Physiotherapy with Bayero University Kano. Later upgraded to full professor from 2016. The Applicant states that his actions showed unnecessary desperation, lack of trustworthiness and lack of maturity, and his attempts to reinstate after the hearing were due to ill advice and highly regrettable. It has been 10 years since the disciplinary action and he has sought to grow and change with regards to trustworthiness, honesty and matching issues of urgent necessities with needs of life and right attitudes.
36. There are no further breaches of trust and misconduct in positions of trust with the University. The Applicant states those experiences and other positions have “…shown me that it takes integrity and honesty to be connect to the community more than having the higher degrees and skills. I have matured and learnt my lesson from this disgraceful incident and I am pleading for readmission…if readmitted I will give my full effort to abide fully with regulations…”
37. A University of Maiduguri letter dated 3 September 2013 has been supplied offering a probationary appointment. Bayero University, Kano, an offer letter dated 27 August 2013 for a full-time appointment as a Professor in the Department of Physiotherapy. A University of Maiduguri letter of resignation dated 29 October 2015. A Bayero University offer letter for a full-time professor in the department of physiotherapy dated 22 September 2016. University of Maiduguri appointment letter level 400 coordinator dated 3 November 2014. Bayero University letter regarding coordination of a certificate programme for acupuncture dated 8 April 2016. Bayero University letter granting permission to serve as an examiner dated 28 March 2017. University of Maiduguri letter for promotion of academic staff to rank of Professor dated 20 October 2016. National Universities commission letter confirming accreditation of academic programmes in Nigerian universities, dated 12 November 2019. Independent National Electoral Commission letter appointing a coalition officer, dated 22 February 2019. Certificate for Medical Rehabilitation Therapists (Registration) Board of Nigeria due to expire on 31 December 2022.
HCPC submissions
38. The Applicant provided no evidence of “practise” in Nigeria, and no evidence of 60 days updating, in particular 30 days supervised study, 20 days formal study and 10 days informal study. There are no testimonials or independent character references.
39. Article 33(5) of the Health Profession Order provides the Panel must not grant an application for restoration unless it is satisfied that the Applicant: (1) Meets the general requirements for registration; and (2) Is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to removal.
40. The Panel was referred to the HCPTS Restoration Practice Note, which contains guidance reflecting those legislative requirements. The application for restoration is not an appeal or review of the original panel’s decision and this Panel should not go behind the findings of the original panel or the sanction it imposed.
41. Ms Welsh submitted that there is not enough detail for the Panel to feel confident that the Applicant meets the HCPC requirements for Registration. It appears that the Applicant has been out of clinical practice for more than 10 years, and he is required to have completed 60 days of updating knowledge and skills (supervised practice, formal study, private study). Notwithstanding the submission that the Applicant has not met general requirements for registration, it would also be insufficient to merely meet the requisite standard of proficiency and other general requirements for registration; the Applicant must also be a fit and proper person to practise.
42. The HCPC invited the Panel to consider the matters which led to the Applicant’s removal and the reasons given by the original panel for imposing the sanction. The facts found were serious, persistent and repeated over a period of 4 years. The Applicant’s conduct was dishonest, deceptive and misleading for financial gain. The Substantive Hearing panel also identified a high risk of repetition given the absolute lack of insight by the Applicant.
43. The Panel should consider the Applicant’s submissions, his acceptance that his previous misconduct was unacceptable, that he has expressed remorse and submitted that his actions were from a place of desperation. There is no evidence from the Applicant relating to the impact on service users, colleagues and public perception. None of the costs he was ordered to pay have been paid. His misconduct was extensive and serious in nature and therefore would be difficult to resolve. The Applicant’s evidence concerns his desperate family and financial circumstances at the time. There is no new evidence to suggest these pressures are mitigated or have dissipated, or to explain how the Applicant would handle a similar circumstance if it were to occur again. There is no evidence of an ethics course being undertaken or evidence of insight into the impact of his actions.
44. The HCPC submitted there is insufficient evidence today that the Applicant has remediated his dishonesty, undertaken reflection about what he has learned and how to ensure he is not dishonest again. The context which allegedly led to the dishonest behaviour has not changed (such as financial pressure and family circumstances). There is financial pressure due to the outstanding costs owed to the HCPC, and the Applicant stated he could not immediately afford the HCPC registration fee when he made initial contact with HCPC for restoration. There is limited information about why the Applicant wishes to regain registration in the UK and there is evidence of recent health problems. There are offer letters and a statement setting out his employment history since the final hearing, but this is a case of fraudulent activity. The Applicant forged and fabricated his employment history and testimonials. There are no independent testimonials confirming his employment history.
45. The Applicant has not shown he has taken steps to keep his professional knowledge and skills up to date. The evidence of employment in Nigeria is not detailed as to the exact nature of his work. It appears he has been practising as an educator and not in clinical work. He has not been registered with the HCPC for more than 5 years, and is out of practise in the UK. He has not completed 60 days of updating, private study hours or formal CPD.
46. The HCPC further submitted that the Panel should consider the relevant case law in regard to restoration, when determining whether the Applicant is now a “fit and proper person”. In the case of: GMC v Chandra [2018] EWCA Civ 1898 concerning an appeal against a decision not to restore a doctor who had previously been erased from the register for misconduct and the overriding objectives of the Regulator. The Court found that while passage of time and remediation would be given some weight at a restoration stage and would be essential but not definitive points for restoration. There should be consideration of the overriding objectives including the issue of damage caused to public confidence and professional standards by allowing restoration, and that a patient’s trust and confidence in their doctor should take precedence.
47. Applying Chandra: if the Panel considered remediation of the previous findings and made positive findings. The Panel should then step back and balance those findings against each of the overarching objectives of the Regulator to:
i. Protect and promote the health and safety of the public;
ii. Protect and uphold public confidence in the profession;
iii. Set and maintain professional standards and conduct for members of the profession
48. The HCPC submitted restoring the Applicant to the register would not achieve those overarching objectives.
49. The case of Bolton v Law Society [1993] EWCA Civ 32 (06 December 1993) decided: The reputation of the profession is more important than the fate of any individual professional. Dishonesty is always a serious matter, striking at the heart of public confidence in the profession and “to maintain this reputation and sustain public confidence in the integrity of the profession it is often necessary that those guilty of serious lapses are not only expelled but denied re-admission”.
50. The HCPC invited the Panel to refuse the Application for restoration.
51. Ms Welsh concluded that the Panel cannot be satisfied that the Applicant: (1) Meets the general requirements for registration; and (2) Is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to removal.
Legal Assessor’s advice
52. The Legal Assessor provided legal advice and directed the Panel to the HCPTS Practice Note entitled Restoration to the Register. Article 33(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001, provides that a person who has been struck off the HCPC Register and who wishes to return to the Register must make an application for restoration. Applications for restoration must be made in writing to the Registrar who must refer restoration applications to a Panel of the Practice Committee which made the striking off order.
53. A restoration application cannot be made until five years have elapsed since the striking off order came into force. In addition, a person may not make more than one application for restoration in any period of twelve months. The applicant has the burden of proof in a restoration case. It is for the Applicant to prove the facts he relies on and persuade the Panel that he should be restored to the Register. It is not for the HCPC to prove the contrary.
54. Article 33(5) provides that a Panel must not grant an application for restoration unless it is satisfied, on such evidence as it may require, that the applicant: meets the general requirements for registration; and is a fit and proper person to practise the relevant profession, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to striking off.
55. If a Panel grants an application for restoration, it may do so unconditionally or subject to the applicant: meeting any applicable education and training requirements specified by the Council; or complying with a conditions of practice order imposed by the Panel. Where a Panel decides to restore a person to the Register, it must clearly set out the order which it has made.
Decision
56. The Panel accepted the Legal Assessor’s advice. The Practice Note states the reasons why the Applicant was struck off the Register will invariably be highly relevant to the Panel’s consideration of the application and it is insufficient for the Applicant merely to establish that he meets the requisite standard of proficiency and the other general requirements for registration.
57. An application for restoration is not an appeal from, or review of, the original decision. The Panel is not able to go behind the findings of the original Panel or the sanction it imposed.
58. In determining this application, the issues which the Panel has considered include:
• the matters which led to striking off and the reasons given by the original panel for imposing that sanction;
• whether the Applicant accepts and has insight into those matters;
• whether the Applicant has resolved those matters, has the willingness and ability to do so, or whether they are capable of being resolved by the applicant;
• what other remedial or rehabilitative steps the Applicant has taken;
• what steps the Applicant has taken to keep his or her professional knowledge and skills up to date.
59. The Panel found that the original allegations which have been proved were serious. The Applicant’s misconduct over a four-year period was persistent, deliberate and motivated by financial gain. There was serious dishonesty and a deep-seated lack of integrity and lack of respect for colleagues and patients. He fell far below the acceptable standards of conduct. The Panel further concluded that although the Applicant has shown some limited acceptance, apology and remorse and provided an explanation for his motivation, he demonstrated limited understanding of the impact of his misconduct.
60. There is no clear evidence of insight into the impact of his conduct on service users, colleagues or the reputation of the profession and there has been limited reflection. The Applicant’s recent submissions state he understands the need for honesty and integrity; but he has not developed his insight by undertaking a course of training in professional ethics. He has also not kept his knowledge and skills up to date, which is a pre-condition for HCPC registration. He has provided general statements of regret but no independent testimonials or evidence of continuing professional development (CPD).
61. The Panel also noted that none of the High Court costs he was ordered to pay to the HCPC have been paid. This issue was not addressed by the Applicant in his restoration application, until it was raised by the HCPC.
62. The Applicant has not established either of the grounds which must both be satisfied for his restoration application to succeed.
63. The Panel is not satisfied that the Applicant meets the general requirements for registration.
64. The Panel is not satisfied that the Applicant is a fit and proper person to practise as a physiotherapist, having regard to the particular circumstances that led to his removal from the HCPC register.
65. His application for restoration to the register is fundamentally flawed and must be refused.

ORDER: The Panel refuses the application.

No notes available

History of Hearings for Mr Oluwaleke G Sokunbi