The Nigeria Police on Wednesday withdrew the evidence it sought to tender against Mrs. Chioma Okoli in the ongoing alleged cyberstalking case before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The prosecuting counsel, Adam Ugwuanyi, withdrew his application before Justice Peter Lifu following an objection by Okoli’s lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, challenging the admissibility of the documents.
The Inspector-General of Police is prosecuting Mrs. Okoli, the sole defendant, on charges of cyberstalking filed in 2023 over her negative review of Nagiko Tomato Mix, a product manufactured by Erisco Foods Limited.
When the case was called, Justice Lifu reiterated his earlier advice to the parties to explore an amicable settlement, citing Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, which empowers judges to encourage alternative dispute resolution.
The judge explained that his suggestion was guided by conscience and national interest but stressed his readiness to proceed with the hearing should both sides fail to reach a settlement.
Responding, the police counsel, Ugwuanyi, argued that it was the defendant’s responsibility to initiate settlement.
Effiong, however, informed the court that several high-profile individuals had intervened to mediate between his client and Erisco Foods, but their efforts were unsuccessful. He alleged that the company’s CEO had vowed to continue with the prosecution regardless of any intervention.
When asked to clarify the company’s position, Erisco Foods’ representative, Mr. Nnamdi Nwokolo, who was in court, said he was surprised by the defence’s claim, insisting that no such settlement efforts had been made.
Following the exchange, the court directed Nwokolo—who serves as the first prosecution witness (PW1) and Personal Assistant on Operations to the company’s CEO—to enter the witness box.
In his testimony, Nwokolo stated that his attention was drawn in September 2023 to a Facebook post by Mrs. Okoli, in which she complained about the sugar content in Nagiko Tomato Mix.
He said the post went viral, sparking protests by women’s groups and a nationwide boycott campaign against Erisco Foods. According to him, the campaign drew concern from the company’s Chinese suppliers, who sent emails expressing worry over the situation.
Nwokolo testified that the company’s fortunes had “drastically and irreparably declined” as a result of the boycott.
After his testimony, the prosecution counsel sought to tender several documents as exhibits, including the petition to the Inspector-General of Police, the Facebook post, emails from Chinese partners, a NAFDAC publication, photographs of protesters, a demand notice to the defendant, and an alleged letter of apology from Mrs. Okoli.
However, Effiong objected to their admissibility, arguing that the documents failed to comply with Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which governs electronically generated materials. He further contended that some of the documents were public records not properly certified under Section 104 of the same Act, citing the Supreme Court decision in Kubur v. Dickson (2013).
Effiong maintained that the certificate of compliance provided by the prosecution did not contain sufficient details about the electronic documents.
In response, Ugwuanyi applied to withdraw all the documents, stating that he did not wish to waste the defence’s time, and requested an adjournment to “put his house in order.”
Effiong opposed the adjournment, arguing that the prosecution had offered no valid reason and sought a cost of ₦500,000 against the police for wasting his time, accusing them of “postponing the evil day.”
Justice Lifu agreed that the prosecution had not provided any cogent reason for an adjournment, noting that its conduct had also wasted the court’s time.
Ugwuanyi then opted to close the evidence of the first prosecution witness without tendering any document.
The judge adjourned the matter to January 21 and 22, 2025, for cross-examination of PW1 and directed the police to produce their remaining witnesses on the next dates.
