The Nigerian Police, on Wednesday, withdrew its evidence it sought to tender against Mrs Chioma Okoli in the ongoing alleged cyberstalking offences at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The police lawyer, Adam Ugwuanyi, withdrew his application before Justice Peter Lifu following an objection raised against the admissibility of the evidence by Okoli ‘s lawyer, Inibehe Effiong.
The Inspector-General (I-G) of Police is prosecuting Mrs 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 parties in the case 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, the I-G lawyer, Ugwuanyi, stated that it was the responsibility of the defendant to seek settlement.
Effiong, who appeared for Okoli, told the court that several high profile individuals had made efforts to resolve the case amicably between his client and Erisco Foods and that they had made overtures but to no avail.
The human rights 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, Mr Nnamdi Nwokolo, who was in court, what was his position and that of the CEO of the company, on settling the dispute.
Nwokolo said he was surprised at the submission of the defence counsel because they had actually not made any effort to resolve the matter.
Following the comments from the parties, the court ordered Nwokolo, the 1st prosecution witness (PW-1) and Personal Assistant on Operations 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 Chioma where she complained about the sugar content in one of their company’s products called Nagiko Tomato Mix.
Nwokolo said the Facebook post went viral and led to protests by women groups and a nationwide boycott campaign against Erisco Foods.
According to 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 evidences but was resisted by the defence counsel who raised objections on many grounds against all the documents sought to be tendered as exhibits by the police.
Among the documents sought to be tendered were the petition written to I-G, the Facebook post made by the defendant, emails sent by the Chinese partners of Erisco Foods and an online publication by NAFDAC.
These also include 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.
Effiong raised 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 of the Facebook post, the lawyer said he objected to tendering of all the accompanied 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 do not contain relevant information on the electronically generated documents, among other grounds.
Following the objection, Ugwuanyi prayed the court to allow him to withdraw all the documents.
The lawyer, who said he did not want to waste the time of the defence counsel any further, pleaded with the court for an adjournment to put his house in order.
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 was 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 equally wasted the court’s time.
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 Jan. 21 and Jan. 22, 2025 for the cross examination of the 1st prosecution witness.
The judge also ordered the police to bring their remaining witnesses to court on the next adjourned dates.
