Lawyers for Sesi-Edem Company Limited have stated that a High Court injunction restraining the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) from taking action against the company and its directors remains fully in force, contrary to recent media reports.
In a press statement issued on April 25, 2026, Knightscild Chambers rejected claims that EOCO is “free to investigate,” describing such assertions as inaccurate and misleading.
“That assertion is wrong as a matter of law and fact,” the lawyers stressed.
They explained that although the initial interim injunction granted on April 14 was for ten days, the company filed an application for an interlocutory injunction on April 17.
“Under Order 25 rule 10… the interim injunction continues in force pending the determination of that application,” the statement noted, adding that the order “remains in force by operation of law.”
The lawyers also referenced an affidavit filed by EOCO on April 21, in which the agency reportedly denied ever declaring the company’s directors wanted.
“EOCO now contends… that it never declared the Company and its directors ‘wanted’, and that its press releases were issued merely for purposes of media engagement. That position is, to put it mildly, remarkable,” the statement said.
They further criticised EOCO’s actions, arguing that the agency was aware the company’s directors were not fugitives and that no valid basis existed for the publications.
“Such conduct cannot properly be dismissed as media engagement… It represents a serious misuse of institutional authority and a naked abuse of power,” the lawyers asserted.
Knightscild Chambers also pointed to an earlier High Court ruling on March 19, 2026, which found that EOCO had acted outside its statutory mandate and breached the company’s constitutional rights. They noted that EOCO’s Board has since directed its management to comply strictly with the injunction.
The firm is now demanding immediate corrections from media outlets that reported otherwise. “Continued publication… suggesting that EOCO is ‘free to investigate’… may amount to contempt of court,” the statement warned, adding that the company “reserves all its rights.”
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.