Customer Files N500million Suit Against Erisco Company, IGP Over Illegal Detention

Nigerian woman, Mrs Chioma Edoka Okoli, who was arrested and detained for three days after she reviewed a tomato product on Facebook has instituted a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the tomato manufacturing company, Erisco Foods Limited, over the violation of her rights to dignity of human person.

Joined in the suit No. FHC/L/CS/2164/2023, according to the Originating Motion on Notice are President/CEO of Erisco, Chief Eric Umeofia, Acting Inspector General Police, Kayode Egbetokun.

Other Respondents in the lawsuit are, the head of the IGP Monitoring Unit, DCP Adamu Abdullahi Elleman, and two investigating police officers, CSP Oliver Odimega and DSP Joel Nimfa.

In the suit filed at Federal High Court, Lagos Judicial Division on Wednesday, through a Lagos-based human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, Chioma also sought for N500million damages.

In his written address, Effiong asked the court to determine five issues as follows:

“Whether the arrest and detention of the Applicant by the 3rd to 7th Respondents on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, from 24th September, 2023 to the 26th September, 2023, without reasonable cause and or without being charged to court is not a violation of the fundamental right of the Applicant to personal liberty and freedom of movement as enshrined in Sections 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act (CAP A9) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“Whether the refusal to provide reasonable and necessary facilities for the Applicant to bathe and defecate, and forcefully taking the Applicant to her bank and compelling her to obtain her bank statement against her will, does not amount to torture, oppression, inhuman and degrading treatment by the 3rd to 7th Respondents on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, and constitutes a violation of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant to dignity of the human person as guaranteed by Section 34 (1) (a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 LFN 2004.

“Whether the seizure and accessing of the contents of the Applicant’s personal mobile phone by the 3rd Respondent, without the Applicant’s consent, and without a court order, is not in contravention of the Fundamental Right to privacy as guaranteed by Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

“Whether the arrest and detention of the Applicant by the 3rd to 7th Respondents, on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, over a review made by the Applicant on Facebook as a consumer in respect of the tomato product manufactured by the 1st Respondent, is not arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and in blatant contravention of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“Whether the Applicant is not entitled to general and exemplary damages, public apology and other reliefs sought in this application for the violation of her fundamental rights. Upon a resolution of the above questions, Effiong is asking the court to grant the following reliefs in favour of his client:

“A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the Applicant without reasonable cause or legally justifiable ground, but merely for an alleged civil wrong arising from the review(s) made by the Applicant on Facebook in respect of the Nakigo Tomato Mix product manufactured by the 1st Respondent is arbitrary, illegal, unjustifiable and in flagrant contravention of the provisions of the law and amounts to a violation of the fundamental right of the Applicant to personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed by Sections 35 and 41 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 6 and 12 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the Applicant by the 3rd to 7th Respondents on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for more than 24 hours without charging her to court for a known offence is unreasonable, unjustifiable, illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant to personal liberty as guaranteed by Sections 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Articles 6 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“A DECLARATION that the failure or refusal by the 3rd to 7th Respondents to provide the Applicant with facilities for her to bathe and defecate while in the 3rd to 7th Respondents’ custody, and forcefully taking the Applicant to her bank and compelling her to obtain her Statement of Account against her will on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, amounts to torture, oppression, inhuman and degrading treatment and is unjustifiable, unconscionable, illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant to dignity of the human person as guaranteed by Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“A DECLARATION that the seizure and accessing of the private chats and other contents of the personal mobile phone of the Applicant by the 3rd Respondent, in conceit with other officers and agents of the 5th Respondent on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, without the Applicant’s consent or a court order, is unjustifiable, illegal, unconstitutional and a breach of the Fundamental Right of the Applicant to privacy as guaranteed by Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (As Amended).

“A DECLARATION that the review of the Nakigo Tomato Mix product manufactured and produced by the 1st Respondent by the Applicant on her Facebook timeline as a consumer of the said product is constitutional, lawful and in furtherance of the fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section by 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“A DECLARATION that the arrest and detention of the Applicant by the 3rd to 7th Respondents on the instigation of the 1st and 2nd Respondents, because of the Applicant’s review of the Nakigo Tomato Mix product is ultra vires, unjustifiable, condemnable, unconstitutional and amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Section by 39 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Article 9 African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act Cap. A9 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004.

“AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing and compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally, to publish an unreserved written apology to the Applicant in the three National Newspapers for breaching the Applicant’s fundamental rights.

“AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing and compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to also publish the said unreserved written apology to the Applicant on the Facebook page of Erisco Foods Limited.

“AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing and compelling the Respondents, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of N500, 000,000.00 (Five Hundred Million Naira) as General and Exemplary damages to the Applicant for violating the Applicant’s Fundamental Rights.

“AN ORDER OF PERPETUAL INJUNCTION restraining the Respondents, jointly and severally, whether by themselves, their agents, departments, employees, operatives, detectives, investigating officers or howsoever or by whatever name called, from further arresting or interfering with the personal liberty and other fundamental rights of the Applicant in any manner.”

In a 41 paragraphed affidavit deposed to by Chioma in support of the suit, the nursing mother gave a graphic account of how policemen acting on the instigation of Erisco Foods Limited and its President/CEO, Chief Eric Umeofia, arrested her from St. Andrews Anglican Church in Ogudu, Lagos on 24th September, 2023 without prior invitation, and detained her at the Ogudu Police Station.

According to her the police officers forced her to board a Valuejet flight the next day to Abuja where she was further detained at the Asokoro Police Station.

She noted that the officers took her before the head of the IGP Monitoring Unit, DCP Elleman, and the Erisco Foods boss, Chief Eric Umeofia, on 26th September, 2023 and subjected her to further humiliation, intimidation and abuse. She narrated how Chief Eric repeatedly boasted in the presence of the police officers, that he could have kidnapped and killed her and nothing would happen.

She also accused the police of refusing to make facilities for her to bathe and defecate for the three days she was in police custody, and accused the police and Chief Eric of forcing her to write an apology letter and demanded that she post the apology on Facebook and delete her review of the Nagiko Tomato Mix from her Facebook account as preconditions for her release.

Chioma had asked the court to compel Erisco Foods Limited, Chief Eric, the Nigeria Police Force and other Respondents to pay her the sum of N500 Million as general and exemplary damages and also tender a public apology to her in National Newspapers and on Facebook.

No date has been fixed for the hearing of the suit.