Erisco Foods Vs Chioma Okoli: Judge slams IGP for wasting court’s time
The police, on Wednesday, withdrew the evidence it sought to tender against Chioma Okoli in the cyberstalking case at the Federal High Court, Abuja Division.
The police, on Wednesday, withdrew the evidence it sought to tender against Chioma Okoli in the cyberstalking case at the Federal High Court, Abuja Division.
The police lawyer, Adam Ugwuanyi, withdrew his application before Justice Peter Lifu following an objection to the admissibility of the evidence by Ms Okoli’s lawyer, Inibehe Effiong.
The inspector general of police is prosecuting Ms Okoli, the sole defendant in the trial, on alleged cyberstalking charges instituted in 2023 over her negative review of Nagiko Tomato Mix, manufactured by Erisco Foods Limited.
When the case was called, the trial judge, Justice Peter Lifu, reiterated his earlier position on the need for the parties to explore an amicable settlement.
The judge said his advice was backed by Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, which empowers judges to encourage alternative dispute resolution between parties.
Justice Lifu maintained that he was only acting as the conscience of the nation in the case by advising the parties to try and settle, but that he was ready to proceed with the hearing if the parties were unable to settle their differences.
Responding, Mr Ugwuanyi, stated that it was the defendant’s responsibility to seek a settlement. Mr Effiong told the court that several high-profile individuals had made efforts to resolve the case amicably between his client and Erisco Foods, but their overtures had been to no avail.
The lawyer alleged that Erisco Foods’ CEO had vowed to continue with the trial irrespective of any intervention.
The judge then asked the representative of Erisco Foods Limited, Nnamdi Nwokolo, who was in court, what his position and that of the company’s CEO were on settling the dispute. Mr Nwokolo said he was surprised by the defence counsel’s submission, as they had not made any effort to resolve the matter.
Following the parties’ comments, the court ordered Mr Nwokolo, the first prosecution witness and the personal assistant to the company’s CEO, to enter the witness box. In his evidence-in-chief, the prosecution witness testified that, sometimes in September 2023, his attention was drawn to a Facebook post made by Ms Okoli where she complained about the sugar content in one of their company’s products called Nagiko Tomato Mix.
Mr Nwokolo said the Facebook post went viral, prompting protests by women’s groups and a nationwide boycott campaign against Erisco Foods. According to Mr Nwokolo, their Chinese suppliers sent them emails expressing concerns over the boycott campaign. He further testified that the company’s fortunes had drastically and irreparably fallen as a result of the boycott campaign.
After his testimony, the prosecution counsel applied to tender several documents as evidence, but the defence counsel resisted, raising objections on many grounds to all the documents sought to be tendered as exhibits by the police.
Among the documents sought to be tendered were the petition addressed to the inspector general of police, the defendant’s Facebook post, emails sent by the Chinese partners of Erisco Foods, and an online publication by NAFDAC. These also included photographs of women with placards demanding the release of Chioma, a demand notice written to the defendant, a letter of apology allegedly authored by the defendant, among others.
Mr Effiong raised a series of objections to the documents sought to be tendered on the grounds that they were not in compliance with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which prescribes the conditions for the admissibility of electronically generated documents.
He said, though he did not object to tendering the Facebook post, that he objected to tendering all the accompanying documents. The lawyer also argued that some of the documents were public documents and were not certified in line with the provisions of Section 104 of the Evidence Act. He cited the case of Kubur V. Dickson, decided by the Supreme Court in 2013.
According to the defence counsel, the purported certificate of compliance produced by the prosecution counsel does not contain relevant information on the electronically generated documents, among other grounds.
Following the objection, Mr Ugwuanyi asked the court to allow him to withdraw all the documents. The lawyer, who said he did not want to further waste the defence counsel’s time, pleaded with the court for an adjournment to put his house in order.
Mr Effiong, who said that the prosecution counsel did not adduce any cogent reason for seeking adjournment, sought a N500,000 cost for wasting his time. He said the police were only postponing the evil day by seeking to withdraw the documents.
Reacting to the submissions, Justice Lifu agreed that the prosecution had not furnished the court with any cogent reason for seeking an adjournment. According to the judge, the prosecution has wasted the court’s time as well.
Mr Ugwuanyi then rose and pleaded in the alternative to close the evidence of his PW-1 without tendering any document.
Justice Lifu adjourned the matter until January 21 and 22, 2025, for the cross-examination of the first prosecution witness. The judge also ordered the police to bring their remaining witnesses to court on the next adjourned date.
(NAN)
