RULAAC Demands Probe Of Lagos Police Unit Over Alleged CCTV Destruction, Backdated Petitions In Vandalism Case | Sahara Reporters

The group raised allegations that the police destroyed CCTV evidence, retrospectively procured petitions, and retaliatory action against a suspect who dared to approach a human rights organisation.

The Rule of Law and Accountability Advocacy Centre (RULAAC) has called on the Inspector-General of Police to order an urgent, independent investigation into the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID) Annex, Alagbon, Lagos, over the handling of a high-profile telecommunications vandalism case.

The group raised allegations that the police destroyed CCTV evidence, retrospectively procured petitions, and retaliatory action against a suspect who dared to approach a human rights organisation.

In a detailed petition to the IGP obtained by SaharaReporters, RULAAC said it fully supports the prosecution of anyone credibly linked to attacks on critical telecom infrastructure, but warned that the FCID’s public parade of four suspects, identified as Abuchi Odikemere, Anyanwu Emmanuel, Kayode Segun, and 17-year-old Emmanuel Chineku, must not be used to foreclose a thorough, impartial investigation.

According to the petition, the suspects were arrested at a shop in Kosofe, Lagos, after FCID received a petition on 11 August 2026 from Plutolord Solicitors on behalf of ATC Telecommunications Nationwide.

The AIG in charge of FCID Annex Lagos, Simeon Akpanudom, told a press briefing that the Annex received 1,816 complaints between 25 June and 18 September 2026, and touted the telecom case as a major breakthrough.

Police claimed armed persons attacked and vandalised telecom facilities in Lagos and the Southeast between March and May 2026, stealing equipment worth about ₦150 million. Recovered items included 52 solar batteries, two surveillance cameras, three small solar panels, two solar meters, a hammer and a chisel.

But RULAAC’s Executive Director, Okechukwu Nwanguma, said interviews with the shop owner, Mr. Chika Onwa Odo, and information from other sources have exposed troubling gaps in the investigation.

The most disturbing allegation, according to RULAAC, is that police officers destroyed CCTV cameras at Chika’s shop during the operation, yet two surveillance cameras were later listed among the exhibits allegedly recovered from the suspects and identified by the petitioner.

“Chika had informed RULAAC that during the operation police officers damaged/destroyed CCTV cameras at his shop, which he believes was intended to eliminate a record of what transpired during the operation,” Nwanguma wrote to the IGP.

“Yet the Police subsequently listed two surveillance cameras among the exhibits allegedly recovered from the suspects. Published reports of the FCID briefing confirm that two surveillance cameras were among the exhibits presented as having been recovered and identified by the petitioner.”

RULAAC demanded an independent forensic examination to determine “what exactly happened to Chika’s CCTV system, and were any components of his own surveillance equipment subsequently presented as exhibits in the criminal investigation?”

It added, “If Chika’s allegation is false, an independent investigation should establish that. But if officers damaged, dismantled or removed CCTV equipment capable of recording their operation, and any component of that system was subsequently characterised as an exhibit connected with the alleged telecom offences, that would raise extremely serious questions about evidence handling and the integrity of the investigation.”

RULAAC also raised questions about the origin and timing of the petitions. While the ATC petition is dated 11 August 2026, the group said it received allegations that the operation initially arose from informant information, and that additional petitions involving other telecom interests emerged only after questions began to be raised about the complainants and the evidential basis of the operation. There are further allegations that some petitions were retrospectively procured or backdated.

“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,” Nwanguma said.

Chika also alleged that the individual behind the current allegations had previously caused his arrest over similar battery allegations involving ATC. That earlier matter was handled at Zone 2, he was detained and charged to court, but the complainant later stopped attending proceedings and the case stalled. Chika further alleged the same individual threatened to send him to prison if he continued his battery business.

RULAAC called for the previous investigation file and court records to be retrieved, saying they “may provide important evidence either supporting or disproving Chika’s account.”

Perhaps most damning, RULAAC said it received information from independent sources that some officers involved in the investigation became angry after Chika approached the organisation and RULAAC began asking questions. There are allegations that subsequent actions were motivated, at least partly, by a determination to “deal with” Chika for bringing outside scrutiny to the matter.

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

The timing of the public parade has also raised eyebrows. Nwanguma said he personally contacted AIG Akpanudom and appealed to him to keep an open mind and hear Chika’s account alongside whatever information his officers had provided. He repeated that appeal. Yet the suspects were publicly paraded the following day.

“Was the decision to parade the suspects already scheduled before RULAAC’s intervention? Who authorised it? Why was a public parade considered necessary despite the subsisting Force directive against the practice? And why did it occur immediately after RULAAC requested senior-level scrutiny of the investigation?” Nwanguma asked.

He noted that the IGP had previously directed that suspects should not be publicly paraded before formal charges, emphasising their fundamental rights and the requirements of justice and fair trial.

“The persons in this case are suspects entitled to the constitutional presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Why, therefore, were they publicly paraded and effectively presented to the public as members of a criminal syndicate before trial?”

In a separate message accompanying the petition, Nwanguma said: “FCID Annex Alagbon is a crime scene. Comrade, please let’s join hands to expose the criminality.”

RULAAC is asking the IGP to 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 through serial numbers, asset registers and site records; investigate allegations of improper financial demands or benefits; examine allegations of insider collaboration and retaliation; and ensure the seized goods are properly inventoried and preserved.

“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,” Nwanguma said.

“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,” the group said.

“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.”

RULAAC insisted that police accountability is not hostility to the police.