At the resumed hearing of the cyberstalking case against Mrs. Chioma Okoli, the Nigeria Police Force, represented by Adam Ugwuanyi, withdrew its application to tender several documents in evidence before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu.
The prosecution, acting on behalf of the Inspector‑General of Police, had charged Okoli in 2023 over her social media review of Nagiko Tomato Mix, a product of Erisco Foods Limited, which allegedly triggered a nationwide boycott campaign.
Justice Lifu reiterated his earlier call for the parties to explore amicable settlement, citing Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, which empowers judges to encourage alternative dispute resolution. He stressed that his advice was in the interest of justice but affirmed readiness to proceed with trial if settlement failed.
While the prosecution argued that it was the defendant’s duty to seek settlement, defence counsel Inibehe Effiong countered that several high‑profile interventions had been rebuffed by Erisco Foods’ management. The company’s representative, Mr. Nnamdi Nwokolo, however, denied any such overtures.
Nwokolo, the first prosecution witness (PW‑1) and Personal Assistant to the CEO of Erisco Foods, testified that Okoli’s Facebook post in September 2023 alleging excessive sugar content in Nagiko Tomato Mix went viral, sparking protests and a boycott campaign. He claimed the company’s Chinese suppliers raised concerns and that the firm’s fortunes suffered irreparable damage.
The prosecution sought to tender various documents, including: Okoli’s Facebook post, a petition to the I‑G, emails from Chinese partners, NAFDAC publications, photographs of protests, and a purported letter of apology.
Effiong objected to their admissibility, relying on Section 84 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (conditions for electronic evidence) and Section 104 (certification of public documents). He cited Kubur v. Dickson (2013) SC in support. While he did not oppose the Facebook post itself, he challenged all accompanying documents, arguing that the certificate of compliance was defective.
Faced with these objections, Ugwuanyi withdrew the documents and sought an adjournment to “put his house in order.” Effiong opposed the adjournment, requesting ₦500,000 costs for wasted time.
Justice Lifu held that the prosecution had not provided cogent reasons for adjournment and had wasted the court’s time. The judge, however, allowed the prosecution to close PW‑1’s evidence without tendering documents.
The matter was adjourned to 21 and 22 January 2025 for the cross‑examination of PW‑1 and for the police to present their remaining witnesses.
