By Correspondent in Abuja.
The Nigeria Police Force, on Wednesday, withdrew the evidence it sought to tender against Mrs. Chioma Okoli in her ongoing alleged cyberstalking trial before the Federal High Court, Abuja, following objections by her lawyer, Inibehe Effiong.
The police counsel, Adam Ugwuanyi, announced the withdrawal before Justice Peter Lifu after the defence challenged the admissibility of the documents under the Evidence Act.
Mrs. Okoli, the sole defendant in the case, is being prosecuted by the Inspector-General of Police over a 2023 Facebook post in which she negatively reviewed Nagiko Tomato Mix, a product of Erisco Foods Limited.
When the matter came up, Justice Lifu reiterated his earlier call for the parties to explore an amicable settlement in line with Section 17 of the Federal High Court Act, which empowers judges to encourage alternative dispute resolution.
“I am only acting as the conscience of the nation by urging both parties to reconcile,” Justice Lifu stated, adding that the court was, however, ready to proceed with the hearing should settlement efforts fail.
In response, Ugwuanyi maintained that the onus to initiate settlement lay with the defendant. But Effiong countered, saying several prominent Nigerians had already intervened without success, alleging that the CEO of Erisco Foods remained adamant about pursuing the case.
When asked by the judge to comment, the company’s representative, Mr. Nnamdi Nwokolo, denied that any reconciliation efforts had been made by the defence.
Nwokolo, who testified as the first prosecution witness, told the court that a Facebook post made by Okoli in September 2023 about the sugar content of Nagiko Tomato Mix went viral, sparking protests and a nationwide boycott campaign that severely affected the company’s business and reputation.
He said even their Chinese partners expressed concern through emails over the negative publicity.
The prosecution counsel then sought to tender several documents—including the petition to the Inspector-General of Police, Okoli’s Facebook post, emails from foreign partners, and a NAFDAC publication—but Effiong objected to their admissibility.
He argued that the documents did not meet the requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act, which governs the admissibility of electronically generated evidence, and that some were uncertified public documents in violation of Section 104.
Effiong, however, did not oppose the tendering of the Facebook post itself.
Citing Kubur v. Dickson (2013), the defence lawyer further contended that the certificate of compliance produced by the prosecution was defective and lacked vital details.
Faced with the objections, Ugwuanyi opted to withdraw all the documents, saying he did not wish to waste the court’s time, and sought an adjournment to “put his house in order.”
Effiong opposed the adjournment, requesting a cost of ₦500,000 for what he described as a needless delay by the prosecution.
Justice Lifu agreed that the prosecution had wasted the court’s time and noted that no cogent reason had been given for the adjournment. Ugwuanyi subsequently applied to close the evidence of the first prosecution witness without tendering any documents.
The court adjourned the matter to January 21 and 22, 2026, for cross-examination of the witness and directed the police to ensure that all other witnesses are present on the next hearing dates.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
