Metro

Nigerian govt shuts Chinese supermarket over ‘no-Nigerian shopper’ allegation

Published

8 months ago

April 23, 2024

Nigeria’s Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission has shut down a Chinese store in Abuja, the country’s capital, because it would not let Nigerians in, but only Chinese people in.

The commission told the owner of the store on Airport Road on Monday evening that they had to come in on Wednesday and would use “regulatory tools” against the management. It also claimed it had conducted investigations into complaints by Nigerians who claimed they were victims of unfair treatment. Officials say that the store owner could be punished if they are found guilty.

In the raid led by Boladale Adeyinka, the Director for Surveillance and Investigation of FCCPC, they said their job was in response to the video that went viral showing Nigerians being discriminated against and not being able to get into an Abuja supermarket.

At the end of the enforcement, Adeyinka said that the Chinese woman who owned the supermarket, Cindy Liu Bei, left with her family on Monday at 8:26 a.m., which was proven by the CCTV camera.

She said, “The essence of the surveillance and investigation that we conducted today is to verify the allegations and the content of that viral video.

“On arrival, we noticed that the supermarket which is right behind me, was sealed and padlocked externally. Inquiries have shown that yes, as this morning this supermarket was open and people were here.

“CCTV footage also shows that in the morning, two vehicles departed from these very premises allegedly containing the owner of the supermarket, whom we have been able to identify by name and we have her contact details.”

She further directed that the owner appear before the commission tribunal or the compound would remain sealed.

“Now the summons of course, since she’s not around and the place is locked, is to serve notice on her to appear before the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission by Wednesday.

“There are other regulatory tools to be deployed if she fails to attend to this summon. The summons means that on entering into these premises, they must see the summons because that is how they gain access to it”, she said.

Meanwhile, the China General Chamber Of Commerce, which is in the Royal Choice Estate with the supermarket, denied claims that any Nigerian was discriminated against or not allowed to shop at the store or in the estate.

On Monday in Abuja, the CGCC said this in a statement called “REJOINDER: Response to Allegations of Discrimination at Chinese Supermarket” and signed by the management. The chamber said that the residential area of the estate is made up of privately owned homes and that outside guests must follow strict security rules to stay safe.

However, it said it was sorry about the fight at the estate’s entrance gate between security staff and a customer and that it did not represent the official opinion of the estate management in any way.

The statement read in full, “The China General Chamber of Commerce and the supermarket are completely unrelated entities. The residential area of the estate consists of privately occupied residences. Access for external visitors must adhere to security protocols for safety reasons. The supermarket manager asserts that no individual was subjected to discrimination or denied access to the estate or supermarket to purchase groceries.”

It added, “The altercation at the estate’s entrance gate between the security personnel and a customer is regrettable and does not in any way reflect the official position of the estate management. The China General Chamber of Commerce is an organization that believes in equality and inclusiveness. Our principles are to enhance friendship between the people of both countries and promote economic development. Seeing is believing. We welcome firsthand visits to witness the truth.”

Metro

Nigerian activist remanded in prison for threatening President’s son

Published

3 hours ago

December 21, 2024

Isaac Dachen

A Nigerian court has ordered a female activist, Olamide Thomas, to be remanded in prison custody for allegedly issuing a death threat to President Bola Tinubu’s son, Seyi Tinubu.

The Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Friday delivered the ruling after Olamide was arraigned by the office of the Inspector-General of Police, Kayode Egbetokun, before Justice Emeka Nwite on a three-count charge.

The police team of lawyers led by A.A. Egwu told the court that Olamide was arrested on allegations bordering on harassing and threatening Seyi Tinubu, IGP Egbetokun and the country’s Police force spokesman, ACP Muyiwa Adejobi, in a viral social media post back in October.

The police prosecutors told Justice Nwite that the activist had made a live video posted on Facebook in October, where she allegedly made threatening remarks cursing the President’s son, Egbetokun ahd Adejobi.

According to the police, she had live-streamed the video on the fourth year anniversary of the Lekki toll-gate massacre of Nigerian youths during the #EndSARS protest of 2020 where she said she and other protesters were brutalised by police officers during the memorial procession.

In the video, Thomas had reportedly accused police officers of harassment, claiming that they had been bullying and threatening her. She was also said to have rained curses on Tinubu and his family, Egbetokun and Adejobi, expressing deep grievances, invoking divine powers and issuing severe condemnations and predicting tragedy against them.

The police added that in the video, she stated that Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity would befall the Tinubu family, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Seyi Tinubu.

Reading out the charges, the police said that in count one, Olamide was alleged to have, “knowingly and intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording through computer system or network on her social media platforms wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language.”

“In the video, she stated that Mr Seyi Tinubu would die this year, and misfortune and calamity had befallen the Tinubu family, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Seyi Tinubu.

“The communication placed Seyi in fear of death, violence or bodily harm. The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

“In count two, the defendant intentionally transmitted communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr Egbetokun.

“The communication placed Egbetokun in fear of death violence or bodily harm. The offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 24 (2) (a) of Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

“In count three, Olamide intentionally transmitted or cause the transmission of communication in the form of video recording wherein she made remarks in Yoruba Language, stating that the children of Adejobi would all die before his eyes.

“She was quoted to have also said that he (Adejobi) will bury all his children in a single day, with intent to bully, threaten, harass the person of Mr. Muyiwa Adejobi. The communication placed Adejobi in fear of death of his loved ones.”

After the counts were read to the defendant, she pleaded not guilty to the charge while her defence lawyer, T J. Aondo, SAN, sought to move an oral application on his client’s behalf but the request was turned down.

Justice Nwite therefore directed Aondo to file a formal bail application and adjourned the matter until December 30 for commencement of trial.

He consequently ordered the activist to be remanded in Suleja Correctional Centre pending the hearing of her bail application.

Metro

Zambian law association kicks over suspension of two members

Published

20 hours ago

December 20, 2024

Isaac Dachen

The Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has kicked against the suspension of two of its council members, Arnold Kaluba, the LAZ Honorary Secretary and Junior Lawyers Committee Chair, along with Mulenga Sholomo, the House and Welfare Committee Chair.

The suspended lawyers have already approached the Lusaka High Court to seek a judicial review of their suspensions during the festive season.

In their filings, the two claim their suspension and referral to the Legal Practitioners Committee (LPC) for disciplinary action were illegal and procedurally flawed.

They further argued that the decision which was made without a fair hearing, has damaged their reputations as legal practitioners and threatens their livelihoods.

Zambia Monitor reports that the dispute that led to the suspension of the lawyers stemmed from a letter the duo sent to the LPC on behalf of 399 newly qualified lawyers, scheduled to be called to the Bar in December 2024.

These lawyers had repeatedly raised concerns about paying the full 2024 subscription fees, given they would only be practicing for a few weeks that year but in its response, the LPC offered a compromise which was a reduced fee of K3,025, half the usual K6,050 annual fee.

Dissatisfied with the lack of a council position on the matter, Kaluba and Sholomo independently appealed to the LPC, urging them to reconsider the fees and establish a clearer policy for future cases.

Their actions reportedly angered LAZ president Lungisani Zulu, who accused them of undermining the council and acting without authority which led to their suspension.

Following their letter, Zulu allegedly demanded their removal from the council’s WhatsApp group and issued an ultimatum to resign or face disciplinary action but when they refused to step down, letters of suspension were issued to them.

“The applicants claim this move violated the rules of natural justice, as they were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. Their repeated requests for a council meeting to discuss the matter were also ignored,” the medium reported.

“Kaluba and Sholomo are now asking the court to overturn their suspension and restore them to their positions. Among their demands are a declaration that their suspension was illegal and irrational, an order to reinstate them as council members, and an expedited judicial review of the decision.

“They also want the court to rule that LAZ failed to hear their side of the story, a move they argue was contrary to principles of fairness and transparency.

“The applicants maintain that their actions were driven by the welfare of LAZ members, particularly the newly qualified lawyers struggling to meet the financial demands of the profession.”