Pamela Onyeagusi, Declared Wanted
On Friday, July 21, 2023, the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja in Federal Republic of Nigeria v Lotela Beauty Limited & Anor – Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/145/2023, ordered the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (FCCPC or Commission) to make a public statement as ordered by the Court declaring the 2nd Defendant (Pamela Onyeagusi) a fugitive and wanted for the purpose of apprehension, where found, and ultimately compelled to appear in Court and answer to pending criminal charges.
A statement signed by the FCCPC’s Executive Vice Chairman/CEO, Babatunde Irukera said law enforcement agencies and the general public, are being formally informed through this publication in compliance with the order and directive of the Court.
It will be recalled that on December 13, 2022, the Commission received a complaint that the 2nd Defendant was conducting certain medical or quasi-medical/ cosmetic procedures otherwise known as body modifications and/or enhancements.
The 2nd Defendant operated this business at No. 6, Inuwa Wada Street, Utako, Abuja.
The Complainant was dissatisfied with the services of the 2nd defendant, alleging that bodily injuries were inflicted on her.
The Defendant failed to appear in Court for three consecutive sittings, prompting the Court to direct the FCCPC to make a public publication declaring her a fugitive and wanted.
It was gathered that while investigation by the FCCPC were ongoing, the 2nd Defendant, (Pamela Onyeagusi) allegedly relocated from the above mentioned residence and flew out of the country.
Here’s a full text of the statement signed by the FCCPC’s Executive Vice Chairman/CEO, Babatunde Irukera:
“In the course of the investigation, the Commission discovered that the 2nd Defendant was engaging in a range of cosmetic & beauty modification/enhancement services in the dining area of her residence, in which location she also had minors residing.
“On account of the inappropriateness of the environment for such procedures & operations and apparent hazards associated with the setting, scope and nature of operations, the Commission sealed the premises.
“The Commission’s investigation led to filing criminal charges for violations of the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act, 2018 (FCCPA) with respect to:
Making false, misleading or deceptive representations in violation of Sections 123 (1) and 125 (1) of the FCCPA;
Providing defective and/or unprofessional services in violation of Section 136 of the FCCPA.
Failure to comply with implied and objective standards of reasonable care and skill, contrary to Section 142 (3) of the FCCPA;
Failure to provide services in a manner and quality reasonably expected in violation of Section 130 (1) (b) of the FCCPA;
which offences are punishable under Section 155 of the FCCPA with monetary penalties and/or imprisonment.
“On May 23, 2023, the Federal High Court issued a bench warrant to arrest and produce the 2nd Defendant before the Court.
“Upon failure to appear in Court or fulfill the discretionary courtesy extended to the 2nd Defendant to appear in Court, the Court issued the instant order that is the subject of this statement declaring the 2nd Defendant wanted and directing the Commission to publish and disseminate the same.
Accordingly, the general public, including and particularly law enforcement agencies have, and are being informed of this information in compliance with the order and directive of the Court.
“The Commission reiterates and again invites targets or subjects of investigation of their obligations for compliance or cooperation (where applicable) in investigative, enforcement or judicial processes, regardless of the identity, societal standing, social class, profession or nature of the business of such persons, targets or entities that are subject of investigation.
“The Courts have repeatedly in multiple, and an increasing line of cases affirmed and reinforced the jurisdiction, powers and duty of the Commission to investigate any conduct that is the subject of commerce, including all activities for reward or geared towards satisfaction of a demand from the public, or any person(s) including entities engaging or associated with such activities.
“In Dr. Adepoju Anuoluwapo Olufunmilayo v FCCPC & Anor – Suit No: FHC/L/CS/540/2020, the Federal High Court expressly affirmed the question of whether the Commission can investigate competition or consumer protection issues associated with providing medical services when it agreed that Sections 1, 2 (a) – (f) and 15 of the Medical and Dental Practitioners Act, 2004 did not preclude or pre-empt the Commission from investigating a failed elective surgery with respect to the consumer protection aspect of it.
“The Court also decided that the Commission’s exercise of its power to investigate does not violate fair hearing rights of subjects of investigation.
“In Federal Republic of Nigeria v Dr. Adepoju Anuoluwapo Olufunmilayo & Anor – Charge No: FHC/L/CR/125C/2020, the Federal High Court in dismissing a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court and the powers of the Commission to prosecute a medical doctor noted that the case is “… about the power to prosecute an offence created under the Act [FCCPA] and given the provisions of subsection 3, the Commission in my view has that power to prosecute…”
“In Federal Republic of Nigeria v Prince Ebeano Supermarket Ltd & Anor – Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/100/2020, in dismissing another challenge of the powers of the Commission to prosecute and the jurisdiction of the Commission, the Federal High Court noted that “… the concept of modern consumer protection law with competition laws cover a wide range of activities and same are contained in the FCCPA which in turn, are subsumed in the provisions of Section 251(1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended)…”
“In Premiere Academy Limited v FCCPC & 2 Ors – Suit No: FHC/ABJ/CS/26/2022, the Federal High Court dismissed a claim by Premiere Academy and upheld the inherent powers, jurisdiction and mandate of the Commission under the FCCPA to investigate the broadest range of consumer protection issues irrespective of whether other components (such as criminal) of the legal process is implicated by the conduct that is subject of consumer dissatisfaction.
“Specifically, the Court dismissed Premiere’s argument that a police investigation of a conduct necessarily preempts a regulatory investigation of the same conduct from the standpoint of consumer rights.
In the Coroner Inquest into the death of late Mrs. Adepeju Ugboma – COR/APO/003/2021, a Lagos State Coroner determined that “the FCCPC, a Commission set up to ensure the satisfaction and safety of Nigerian consumers is a legitimately interested party with respect to the death of a patient in a hospital, where there are allegations that consumer rights or standards were violated.”
“The FCCPA, sundry laws, growing number of jurisprudence and globally prevailing practices consistently demonstrate the role of a consumer protection authority in any and every accountability framework for ensuring that rights of consumers are respected and receive compliance.
“The Commission is committed to enforcing the law and again invites persons who have become involved in the enforcement process to adopt a collaborative instead of an adversarial approach to compliance.
“The Commission respects and encourages the prerogative and rights of persons subject of or implicated in any investigation to administratively and judicially disagree & challenge processes and outcomes but reject any failure to comply that is inconsistent or not in accordance with processes authorized or endorsed by prevailing law.
“Where such occur, the Commission will be forced to proceed in accordance with statutory tools to enforce compliance, including when such is adversarial.”
