Erisco Foods may find itself facing legal action as the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC) steps in following the arrest of a customer, Chioma Egodi over comments on the product.
Babatunde Irukera, the Vice Chairman and CEO of the FCCPC discussed the potential for legal action against the company during an interview on the television.
“Regarding criminal defamation, I want to emphasise that a brand cannot be a victim of criminal defamation. Anti-competitive behaviour primarily falls under regulatory jurisdiction rather than criminal. Pursuing law enforcement in such cases is unwise, and it can lead to legal consequences, such as malicious prosecution.”
Speaking candidly Irukera stated; “The laws concerning malicious prosecution are very clear. If I were in-house counsel or outside counsel, I’d be very careful about articulating a statement in that manner.”
He emphasised the importance of handling such situations with caution to avoid potential legal repercussions.
He revealed that the FCCPC had issued a summons to Erisco Foods Limited, requiring them to clarify their role in the arrest and provide relevant documents. Irukera stressed the importance of determining whether the allegations made by the social media user constituted “fair speech” and investigating Erisco’s involvement in the arrest.
He also addressed the company’s decision to involve law enforcement in the matter expressing concerns about this approach, stating,
“I think Erisco was ill-advised to consider pursuing law enforcement concerning this… Damage to a brand is not a criminal conspiracy.” He cautioned against pursuing criminal defamation charges without sufficient grounds.
FCCPC’s take on police action and penalties
Regarding the role of the police in the matter, Irukera acknowledged their duty to investigate allegations but cautioned against misusing law enforcement resources for non-criminal matters. He stated;
“The greatest place where we need to modify behaviour is those who would seek to use the law enforcement apparatus in matters that are truly not criminal.
“In terms of taking legal action against Erisco Foods and the police, I cannot provide legal advice. However, from a legal standpoint, there might be potential theories of liability in civil actions based on established legal principles. My role in this matter is as a regulator focused on maintaining fair competition in commerce.”
Irukera also shed light on the FCCPC’s swift response to the situation. He said, “When I found out about it, the first thing I did was to try and do some quick desk research myself. I saw that I’d been tagged by multiple people that I needed to see this.”
The FCCPC’s commitment to investigating the matter was evident, as they initiated checks and engaged with relevant authorities to determine the circumstances of the arrest.
Empathising the decisions reached by the body, he explained that, “As for potential penalties and fines for breaching competition laws, it’s important to note that the investigation is still in its early stages. The statement alleges anti-competitive conduct, and we are committed to investigating it thoroughly. We need to gather evidence and verify claims before reaching any conclusions.”
“There are no sacred cows in the FCCPC’s work. We have confronted businesses of all sizes, including dominant ones, for anti-competitive or anti-consumer behaviour.
“Our commitment is to present facts and make independent decisions that uphold fair competition,” Irukera remarked.
