The Nigeria Police Force National Cybercrime Center’s senior officers were prohibited on Monday by Justice Daniel Osiagor of the Federal High Court in Lagos from inviting, detaining, or allegedly harassing Tosiba Appliances Limited and four of its officers over a dispute that the applicants contend had already been looked into and settled.
In a basic rights enforcement lawsuit with the case number FHC/L/CV/354/2026, the judge granted all of the applicants’ temporary relief requests.
Toshiba Appliances Limited, Abubakar Opanachi, Pavan Kurma, Gaurav Gupta, and Manish Gupta are the applicants.
The Inspector General of Police; the Police Service Commission; the Commissioner of Police/Director, National Cybercrime Center; Assistant Director SP Abubakar A. Smart; ASP Felix Amusire; and MP Bolt & Sons Ltd. are listed as respondents in the lawsuit.
Through their attorney, Professor Sam Erugo (SAN), Tosiba Appliances Limited, Abubakar Opanachi, Pavan Kurma, Gaurav Gupta, and Manish Gupta filed a lawsuit against the Inspector General of Police, the Police Service Commission, the Commissioner of Police/Director, NPF-NCCC, SP Abubakar A. Smart, ASP Felix Amusire, and MP Bolt & Sons Ltd.
The lawsuit was filed in accordance with the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Ratification and Enforcement) Act, and Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
Prof. Erugo urged the court to grant a restraining order prohibiting the police from inviting his clients again when the case was called on Monday, stating that it was an urgent matter.
He informed the court that since January 2024, they have written to the police more than 20 times, stating that although the issue has already been resolved, the police have persisted in inviting the applicants.
“Every day, the police invite these people. They come, and you grant them bail. We brought the suit to this court to keep them available, Erugo,” he said.
He moved for terms, and the court granted all the reliefs sought.
Justice Osiagor held, “An interim order is hereby granted, restraining the 3rd to 6th Respondents from re-inviting, arresting, or threatening the breach of, or in any way interfering with the Applicants’ fundamental rights to the dignity of their persons, to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and to fair hearing, pending the hearing of the originating Motion on Notice.”
In a motion ex parte dated February 24, 2026, the applicants sought, among others, “an interim order restraining the 3rd to 6th respondents from re-inviting, arresting, or threatening the breach of, or in any way interfering with the applicants’ fundamental rights to the dignity of their persons, to personal liberty, freedom of movement, and to fair hearing.”
They also prayed the court for “an order directing the parties to maintain the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the Originating Motion on Notice.”
The applicants claimed that their rights were in danger after receiving a new invitation letter dated February 17, 2026, from the NPF-NCCC office annex in Panti, Lagos, in an affidavit of urgency deposed to by Abubakar Opanachi, the second applicant and sales manager of the first applicant’s company.
“That I know the applicants’ fundamental rights and safety are seriously threatened and in jeopardy by a new letter of invitation dated 17th February 2026,” Opanachi deposed.
He claimed that the invitation’s topic was the same as the applicants’ earlier petition to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Force Criminal Investigation Department, Abuja, regarding alleged harassment and bias by Lagos Cybercrime Unit officers.
He claims that the DIG, FCID, ordered the matter to be moved from Lagos to Abuja for an “unbiased re-investigation.”
Opanachi also deposed that during an interview conducted on July 14, 2025, at the DIG FCID office in Abuja, an employee, Mr. Olaniyi Bamidele Adeniyi, allegedly “still confessed to the crime, admitted that he had started repayment to the 6th Respondent, and expressed willingness to sell the property he acquired with the proceeds of the crime to pay back.”
He stated, “It was surprising to all, and the 5th Respondent could not explain why the Applicants were being incessantly invited and charged together with Mr. Olaniyi Bamidele Adeniyi, who confessed to the crime.”
Instead of prosecuting the confessed suspect, the deponent claimed that the third through fifth respondents “kept inviting the applicants and other staff and directors… sometimes detaining and releasing them on bail, in an attempt to coerce them to admit liability to pay to the 6th respondent a false calculation of the value of the products.”
He added that representatives of the first applicant and the sixth respondent signed settlement arrangements and decided to resume operations after the Abuja reinvestigation.
“In view of the foregoing facts, a new letter of invitation dated 17th February 2026… is worrisome and has exposed the applicants to great threat and fear for their lives and safety,” he deposed.
The applicants said that the respondents would “continue with impunity in the unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, and gross violation” of their fundamental rights unless the court took immediate action.
They argued that it would be “in the interest of justice to urgently grant the remedial reliefs” requested in the case.
The case was adjourned to April 21, 2026, for hearing the substantive originating motion on notice.
