Police Fail to Present Evidence in Erisco Foods Cyberstalking Case as Court Urges Settlement

Proceedings at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday took a dramatic turn as the Nigeria Police Force failed to present any admissible evidence against Mrs Chioma Edoka Okoli, the Nigerian mother facing cyberstalking charges over her social media review of Nagiko Tomato Mix, a product manufactured by Erisco Foods Limited.

The case, filed in 2023 by the Inspector-General of Police, came up before Justice Peter Lifu, who once again encouraged both parties to consider an out-of-court settlement.

Quoting Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, Justice Lifu noted that judges are empowered to promote alternative dispute resolution, emphasising that he was “only acting as the conscience of the nation” but ready to proceed with trial if reconciliation failed.

Police counsel A. S. Uguwanyi, representing the Inspector General of Police, argued that it was the defendant’s duty to initiate settlement talks.

In response, Mr Nnamdi Nwokolo, Erisco Foods’ Personal Assistant on Operations and representative of the company, told the court that both the company and its CEO, Chief Eric Umeofia, would only consider withdrawing the case if “the defendant apologises again.”

However, defence lawyer and human rights advocate Inibehe Effiong countered that several prominent Nigerians had already intervened in attempts to broker peace, but Erisco Foods had rejected all such efforts.

Effiong added that the matter had dragged on because “the CEO of Erisco Foods may be afraid of dying since he had vowed on national television that he would rather die than abandon the case.”

Justice Lifu thereafter called Nwokolo, the first prosecution witness, to testify.

Nwokolo recounted how in September 2023, he saw Chioma Okoli’s Facebook post complaining about the sugar content in Nagiko Tomato Mix, which went viral and allegedly led to protests and a nationwide boycott of Erisco products. He said the company’s Chinese suppliers had expressed concern over the development, claiming that Erisco’s “fortunes had drastically and irreparably fallen as a result.”

The prosecution then sought to tender several documents, including Chioma’s Facebook post, emails from Chinese partners, and a letter of apology allegedly written by the defendant.

But Effiong objected, invoking Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011, which regulates the admissibility of electronically generated materials. He also cited Section 104 and the case of Kubur v. Dickson (2013) to argue that the documents, being public documents, were not properly certified.

Effiong pointed out that the purported certificate of compliance “did not contain relevant information,” and that the documents were irregularly marked as “certified true copies” by a former prosecutor who had no custody of them.

Faced with the objections, the police prosecutor abruptly withdrew all the documents and sought an adjournment to “put his case in order.”

Effiong opposed the request, urging the court to impose a ₦500,000 cost on the prosecution for wasting time and alleging that the police were “only postponing the evil day.”

Justice Lifu agreed that the prosecution had wasted the court’s time, noting its failure to give any convincing reason for adjournment.

The police counsel then asked to close his first witness’s evidence without tendering any documents. Effiong said he had no objection and was ready to proceed with cross-examination.

Justice Lifu adjourned the matter to January 21 and 22, 2026, for cross-examination of the first prosecution witness, and ordered the police to ensure the appearance of all remaining witnesses.

Source: Sahara Reporters