The Federal High Court, Abuja Division, on Thursday fixed July 24 for ruling on a no-case submission filed by a food critic, Chioma Okoli, in the alleged cybercrime offence over her online commentary on Erisco Foods Limited’s tomato paste.

Justice Peter Lifu fixed the date after Ms Okoli’s counsel, Inibehe Effiong, and the police lawyer, Joel Nimfa, argued their case for and against the application.

Ms Okoli was, on May 31, 2024, admitted to N5 million bail with two sureties after spending few days in a correctional centre following her arraignment on two counts on May 28, 2024.

Ms Okoli is being charged over her online commentary on Erisco Foods Limited’s tomato paste which the police alleged violated the Cybercrime Act, 2015.

She pleaded not guilty to all the charge.

The police alleged that initial investigations showed significant evidence suggesting Ms Okoli’s involvement in breaking existing laws, especially concerning the appropriate use of cyberspace.

Recall that Ms Okoli on September 17, 2023, shared a Facebook post stating that she purchased Nagiko Tomato Mix from Erisco Foods, the day before and found it utterly sugary.

Her post generated reactions and forced the management of the company to involve the police through a petition to the IG.

Though Justice Lifu advised parties to explore out-of-court settlement in the case, the advice was turned down.

However, after the prosecution closed its case after calling two witnesses, Ms Okoli, through her lawyer, Mr Effiong, opted for a no-case submission.

The lawyer argued that the prosecution had been unable to present sufficient evidence to warrant Mr Okoli to open her defence.

In the written address in support of the no-case submission, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/470/2023 dated March 10 but filed March 11, Mr Effiong said the application was predicated on four grounds.

He argued that the essential ingredients of the offences charged had
not been proved.

He submitted that the evidence so far led by the prosecution had been so discredited under cross-examination such that no reasonable court or tribunal would convict on it.

According to him, there is no admissible evidence linking the defendant with the
commission of the offences with which she is charged.

Besides, he argued that a prima facie case had not been made out against Mr Okoli for her to be called upon to answer.

He said the charge, which had
been prosecuted for over three years, “is a scandalous dissipation of
precious judicial time and an intolerable waste of scarce judicial resources.”

According to him, the charge is not only irredeemably unsustainable given the discredited testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but also legally unfounded and should never have found its way into the docket of the honourable court.

Mr Effiong, who posed two issues for determination, submitted that Exhibit CEO2, Exhibit CEO6 and Pages 1 to 3 of Exhibit CEO9 tendered by the prosecution through its 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2) are liable to be expunged from the record of the court, the same being legally inadmissible, having been wrongfully admitted.

“The law is firmly settled that a trial court has a duty to expunge and disregard wrongfully admitted evidence,” he added.

The lawyer, who challenged the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, said the authorities cited by the prosecution were in support of his client.

Mr Effiong prayed the court to uphold their no-case submission.

Responfing, Mr Nimfa vehemently opposed Mr Effiong’s submission.

“Our submission is comprehensive enough to respond to the defence argument,” he said.

Meanwhile, the prosecution, in its response to the no-case submission filed on March 27, urged the court to dismiss the application.

The police submitted that the defendant’s address, ultimately asked the court “to do something the law clearly forbids at this stage: to weigh evidence, resolve perceived contradictions and make findings on credibility before the defence is even called upon.”

It said “with respect, that invitation must be declined.”

(NAN)