Chioma Okoli, a food critic, charged with allegations bordering on her online commentary on Erisco Foods Limited’s tomato paste, on Thursday, opted for a no-case submission.
Okoli, through her lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, told Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, after the prosecution counsel, Adam Ugwuanyi, closed their case after calling two witnesses.
Effiong, who indicated their interest to file the application, said the prosecution had been unable to present sufficient evidence to warrant Okoli to open her defence.
Justice Lifu then adjourned the matter until March 31 for adoption of written addresses in the no-case submission.
The development followed after the defence lawyer cross-examined the 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2), SP Joel Nimfa, attached to the Inspector-General of Police Monitoring Unit, also known as the Police Monitoring Unit, at the Force Headquarters.
The News Agency of Nigeria recalls that while being led in evidence-in-chief by Ugwuanyi, the witness told the court that he led the team that investigated the matter.
Nimfa had said the petition was assigned to his unit and that he personally led the investigation team to Lagos, where the defendant was arrested.
Meanwhile, under cross-examination on Thursday, Effiong asked the police witness to read out the petition filed by Erisco Foods Ltd which necessitated the charge.
When the lawyer asked Nimfa if he actually investigated the matter, the witness responded in affirmative.
“In the petition, Erisco Foods Ltd alleged that the defendant is the leader of an organised criminal syndicate that fakes is products. In your investigation, you did not find evidence that she faked the products of Erisco?” Effiong asked.
“No, we did find evidence,” the witness responded.
“Where were the fake products kept?” the lawyer asked the witness.
“She (Okoli) could not produce any and that is why they are fake,” Nimfa simply responded.
When the lawyer further asked him if the police had tendered any of the fake products made by Okoli before the court, the witness said: “No.”
“In Exhibit CEO-1, there was allegation that the defendant has been working with some manufacturers and producers of substandard products to close down Erisco Foods Ltd. Can you list the names of these manufacturers and producers,” the lawyer asked.
“We could not get the them,” the witness responded.
“It was also alleged that the defendant has made several efforts to extort money from Erisco Foods before she made that post. Did you find out whether she made that contact?” Effiong asked and the witness responded in the negative.
“It is also correct that you did not find any evidence that she demanded any money from Erisco Foods Ltd,” the lawyer asked.
The PW-2 simply said: “Yes.”
After the lawyer concluded the cross-examination, the police lawyer informed the court of their intention to close their case.
