RULAAC CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FCID ALAGBON TELECOM VANDALISM CASE, RAISES QUESTIONS OVER PETITIONS, CCTV DAMAGE AND ALLEGED RETALIATION

PRESS STATEMENT

20 September 2026

RULAAC CALLS FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF FCID ALAGBON TELECOM VANDALISM CASE, RAISES QUESTIONS OVER PETITIONS, CCTV DAMAGE AND ALLEGED RETALIATION

The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has called on the Inspector-General of Police to order a prompt, independent and impartial investigation into troubling allegations surrounding the investigation and public parade of four persons by the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Annex, Alagbon, Lagos, over alleged vandalism and theft of telecommunications infrastructure.

At a press briefing, the Assistant Inspector-General of Police in charge of FCID Annex Lagos, AIG Simeon Akpanudom, said the Annex received 1,816 complaints between 25 June and 18 September 2026, of which 1,803 were referred for investigation. He identified the telecom case as one of the Annex’s major breakthroughs.

According to the AIG, FCID received a petition on 11 August 2026 from Plutolord Solicitors on behalf of ATC Telecommunications Nationwide alleging that armed persons attacked, robbed and vandalised telecommunications facilities in Lagos and parts of the Southeast between March and May 2026, with equipment valued at about ₦150 million allegedly stolen. Police subsequently arrested Abuchi Odikemere, Anyanwu Emmanuel, Kayode Segun and 17-year-old Emmanuel Chineku at a shop in Kosofe, Lagos. Police said 52 solar batteries, two surveillance cameras, three small solar panels, two solar meters, a hammer and a chisel were recovered.

RULAAC recognises the seriousness of attacks on critical telecommunications infrastructure and supports diligent investigation and prosecution of anyone against whom credible evidence establishes involvement in vandalism, robbery, theft or knowing receipt of stolen property.

However, information subsequently received by RULAAC raises questions about aspects of this particular investigation which should not be ignored merely because suspects have already been publicly paraded.

Questions requiring independent answers

RULAAC interviewed Mr. Chika Onwa Odo, at whose business premises some of the suspects were arrested, and received information from other persons who interacted with aspects of the investigation.

Chika denies involvement in vandalism or dealing knowingly in stolen telecommunications equipment. He says he trades in used and decommissioned inverter and telecommunications batteries obtained from different sources, including markets and persons involved in the resale and disposal of used equipment.

RULAAC has also been informed by his lawyer that Chika may not have receipts or complete documentary records establishing the source of some of the particular goods. That is a legitimate issue for police investigation. But the absence of receipts cannot, by itself, establish that the goods were stolen or that the persons arrested participated in the alleged robbery and vandalisation of telecommunications sites.

The critical evidential questions should therefore be answered: Can the batteries and other items recovered from the shop be traced through serial numbers, inventories, tracking records or other objective evidence to identified telecommunications sites that were vandalised? When and where were those sites attacked? What evidence connects each suspect to those particular incidents?

Allegations concerning the origin and timing of petitions

RULAAC has received allegations that the police operation may initially have arisen from information supplied by an informant and that additional petitions involving other telecommunications interests emerged after questions began to be raised about the complainants and evidential basis of the operation.

There are further allegations that some petitions may have been retrospectively procured or backdated.

RULAAC does not present these allegations as established facts.

They are, however, readily capable of independent verification. Police records should establish when each petition was written, received, stamped and assigned for investigation, who introduced the respective complainants, and whether those events occurred before or after the arrests and RULAAC’s intervention.

The publicly reported FCID account specifically states that the ATC petition was received on 11 August 2026. That chronology should therefore form part of any independent review.

Previous case should also be examined

Chika further alleges that the individual he identifies as being behind the current allegations had previously caused his arrest over similar allegations involving batteries claimed to belong to ATC.

According to him, the earlier matter was handled at Zone 2, he was detained and subsequently charged to court, but the complainant later stopped attending proceedings and the case stalled.

He also alleges that the same individual threatened to ensure that he was sent to prison if he continued his battery business.

Again, these are allegations requiring verification. RULAAC calls for the previous investigation file and court records to be retrieved. They may provide important evidence either supporting or disproving Chika’s account.

What happened to the CCTV cameras?

Of particular concern is Chika’s allegation that police officers damaged CCTV cameras at his premises during the operation.

If this is established, it would raise serious questions. CCTV footage could potentially constitute independent evidence of events immediately before and during the operation.

It is therefore important to determine whether cameras were damaged, by whom, under what circumstances and whether any footage survived.

No retaliation for approaching a human rights organisation

RULAAC has also received information from independent sources alleging that some officers involved in the investigation became angry after Chika approached RULAAC and RULAAC began asking questions about the case.

There are allegations that subsequent actions were motivated, at least partly, by a determination to defend the investigation and “deal with” Chika for bringing outside scrutiny to the matter.

These allegations are particularly serious.

No citizen should suffer retaliation for approaching a lawyer, human rights organisation or senior police authority concerning perceived misconduct.

RULAAC’s intervention has never been intended to obstruct legitimate police investigation or shield anyone from prosecution. We asked questions because information brought to us raised questions requiring answers.

Public parade must not foreclose investigation

Before the public parade, RULAAC contacted AIG Akpanudom and appealed to him to keep an open mind and personally hear Chika’s account alongside whatever information his officers had provided.

We subsequently repeated that appeal.

We were therefore concerned that the suspects were publicly presented as members of a syndicate while important questions raised about the investigation remained unresolved. Published reports quote the AIG as saying that efforts were continuing to apprehend other “fleeing members of the syndicate,” even though the suspects were still awaiting prosecution.

A public parade must not create an institutional commitment to a particular narrative or discourage investigators from following evidence that points in another direction.

RULAAC petitions IGP

RULAAC has consequently petitioned the Inspector-General of Police requesting a prompt, independent and impartial investigation conducted outside the immediate investigative team whose conduct forms part of the allegations.

We are asking that investigators establish the true chronology and provenance of the petitions; examine the previous Zone 2 case; determine whether CCTV equipment was damaged during the operation; trace the provenance of the seized goods; investigate allegations of improper financial demands or benefits; examine allegations of insider collaboration and retaliation; and ensure that the seized goods are properly inventoried and preserved pending determination of their ownership and evidential status.

We are not asking the Inspector-General of Police to pronounce Chika or the arrested persons innocent.

Neither are we asking him to presume that the police officers or complainants have committed wrongdoing.

We are asking the IGP to establish the truth.

If credible evidence establishes that Chika, his workers or any other person participated in vandalism, robbery, theft or knowingly received stolen telecommunications equipment, the law should take its course.

But if an independent investigation establishes that police processes were manipulated, complaints were retrospectively manufactured or backdated, evidence was destroyed, police powers were used for extortion or private interests, or a citizen was retaliated against for approaching a human rights organisation, those responsible must equally be held accountable.

Police accountability is not hostility to the Police. An institution demonstrates its strength when it can investigate allegations against its own personnel with the same seriousness with which it investigates allegations against members of the public.

RULAAC therefore calls on the Inspector-General of Police to intervene promptly, preserve all relevant evidence, ensure an independent investigation, protect all parties and witnesses against retaliation, and take appropriate criminal, disciplinary or administrative action and provide redress according to the findings of the investigation.

Okechukwu Nwanguma
Executive Director
Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC)