Inibehe Effiong has accused the Inspector General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, of sneering and flouting the subsisting order of a court of competent jurisdiction by ordering the rearrest of Chioma Edoka Okoli, following her review of Erisco tomato paste last year.
According to him, at about 7am on Tuesday, policemen invaded the residence of Okoli at Sangotedo, Lagos State.
Effiong said: “Chioma Okoli was previously arrested and detained in September 2023 over her review of a tomato product manufactured by Erisco Foods Limited.
“A team of policemen from Abuja who claimed to be acting on the orders of the Inspector General of Police to re-arrest my client refused to serve us with a court order authorising them to do so.
Also Read:
- 2027: Kwankwaso will run as Peter Obi’s deputy — Kwankwasiyya
- Peter Obi and the cross of a Nation, by Valentine Obienyem
- First Lady flags off 2026 planting season in Niger
- David Ogbueli and unseen architecture of global transformation, by Blaise Udunze
- 2027: Wike’s ally joins presidential race, picks PDP forms
“The team from Abuja is being supported by policemen from the Ajiwe Police Station in Ajah.
“The initial team that arrived at her residence called for reinforcement after we demanded to see the court order authorising them to rearrest her.
“They are currently trying to break into her house where she lives with her baby.
“This latest attack on Chioma is in connection with the ongoing case between my client and the police on the instigation of Erisco Foods Limited and its founder, Chief Eric Umeofia.
“The police had secretly filed a ‘charge’ against Chioma at the Federal High Court in Abuja instead of Lagos where the case arose.
“The charge is pending before Hon. Justice A. R Mohammed.
“I later got wind of their plot after a tip-off.
“When the case filed by the police in Abuja came up on 7th December 2023, the police counsel informed the court that they were unable to serve my client with the charge.
“This is not accurate as no attempt was made in this regard.
“The police counsel then applied for an adjournment for them to file a motion to enable them to serve my client with the charge through substituted means.
“Justice Mohammed granted the application and adjourned the case to Wednesday, 10th January, 2024 for hearing of the motion.
“We are astonished that the police would turn around today to invade the residence of my client and harass her and her baby without recourse to the court where the charge is currently pending.
“My client has not been served with any charge, summons or arraignment notice as required by law.
“The case before the court is coming up tomorrow, 10th January, 2024 for the hearing of the motion the police said they would file to secure a court order to serve my client with their ‘charge’ and accompanying documents.
“The team leader told me over the phone that he is a DSP and that he has four ASPs with him and other police officers.
“He also told me that the PSO to the IGP spoke with him directly and that he cannot disobey the order of the IGP despite the court order barring the police from re-arresting my client.
“How can the IGP issue a directive to overrule the subsisting order of a court of competent jurisdiction?
“Is this how we want to develop our country?
“Attached is a subsisting order of the Federal High Court in Lagos made on the 8th day of November, 2023 by Hon. Justice Bogoro in the fundamental rights suit we filed restraining the IGP and the Nigeria Police Force from arresting, rearresting or detaining my client; except on the express order of a court of competent jurisdiction if she is served with a summons or arraignment notice and she fails to appear in it.
“We emphasise again that no charge, summons or arraignment notice has been served on Chioma.
“The police have not appealed against the restraining order and the order has not been vacated.
“It is a sad commentary that the Nigeria Police is beginning the year on a note of lawlessness. I condemn this reckless act of impunity.
“I call on the IGP to abide by the rule of law and direct his officers to allow the court to handle the case in line with due process.
“My client is presumed innocent of any charge filed against her by Section 36 (5) of the 1999 Constitution.
“This is an action that can only be tolerated in a banana republic
