Delta: Lakpa, others deny allegation of breach of peace, fault Invitation by Otu-Jeremi DPO

By Monday Peters, Abuja

Following the invitation to appear before the Divisional Police officer of Otu-Jeremi in Udu local government area of Delta State, Mr. Lakpa Innocent and others through their lawyer Omes Ogedegbe Esq have responded that they would not appear before the Jeremi DPO, citing that the matter has already been handled by the commissioner of police in the state.

The lawyer stated that appearing before the Otu-Jeremi DPO on allegations connected to a matter in which he is the subject of a formal complaint would amount to subjecting his clients to a process lacking neutrality, fairness, and procedural propriety.

This was contained in a counter petition sent to the DPO upon the invitation of Mr Lakpa Innocent and others that a copy was sent to Congress Newspaper on Tuesday.

In a letter to the DPO, their solicitors stated that the invitation was connected to a petition they filed with the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Command, complaining about the DPO’s conduct and unlawful interference in the Otughievwen Community election.

The letter argued that the DPO’s involvement in the matter creates a conflict of interest, as they are the subject of a formal complaint. The clients are willing to appear before the Commissioner of Police or a neutral police officer, but not the DPO.

The solicitors emphasised that their clients are law-abiding citizens who exercised their constitutional right to petition and should not be intimidated or harassed.

Recall, Lakpa Innocent and others had sometimes accused the Otu-Jeremi DPO of undue interference in the Otughievwen community election processes.

The petition titled: “RE: INVITATION OF OUR CLIENTS ON ALLEGED BREACH OF PEACE” read, “We act as Solicitors to Mr. Lakpa Innocent and others (hereinafter referred to as “our Clients”), and write in respect of the invitation extended to them by your office on allegations bordering on breach of peace.

“Our Clients have briefed us that immediately after a formal petition was written and submitted to the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Command, complaining about your conduct and unlawful interference in the Otughievwen Community election, your office proceeded to issue invitations to them on allegations of breach of peace.

“We respectfully state as follows:
That the subject matter upon which our Clients have been invited is directly connected to, and arises from, the issues already formally laid before the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Command, who is now in charge of the matter.

“That the petition before the Commissioner of Police specifically complains against your actions and conduct in relation to the Otughievwen Community election.
In the circumstances, requiring our Clients to appear before you on the same issues creates a clear case of likelihood of bias, as it offends the settled principle of law that no person should be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in causa sua).

“That appearing before you on allegations connected to a matter in which you are the subject of a formal complaint would amount to subjecting our Clients to a process lacking neutrality, fairness, and procedural propriety.
That our Clients are law-abiding citizens who have not breached the peace and who merely exercised their constitutional right to petition a superior authority.

OUR CLIENTS’ POSITION

“In view of the foregoing, we regret to inform you that our Clients are unable to honour the said invitation at this time.
However, our Clients hereby formally indicate their readiness and willingness to:
Appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delta State Command, or Appear before any neutral police officer or panel duly constituted by the Commissioner of Police to look into the matter.

“This position is taken without prejudice, strictly in the interest of justice, fairness, and maintenance of peace.
We trust that this letter will be accorded the seriousness it deserves, and that no further steps will be taken that may be construed as intimidation, harassment, or retaliation against our Clients for exercising their lawful right of petition”, he added.