Chioma Vs Erisco: My One Cent Opinion! 

ULOKA CHIBUIKE 

Emotions are always present, yet they often fall short in resolving issues.

I’m not pleased with the way the Erisco Food Chairman, Mr. Eric Omeofia has handled the case involving his brand and the Facebook reviewer, Chioma Egodi, whom he’s accused of negative review and defamation and taken to court for legal action.

When this issue arose late last year and I witnessed the Erisco Chairman’s aggression on Arise TV, I warned those around me that Chioma might face a lengthy legal battle. It’s unfortunate that the public pressure and mob opinion prevented Chioma and her family from pursuing alternative resolutions but allowed the situation to escalate to the point of litigation with Chioma set to be arraigned in April.

Although both parties hail from Nnewi, Chioma and her family overlooked this potential advantage due to the influence of mob opinion. Unless you’ve experienced doing business in Nigeria’s challenging environment, particularly when relying on external funding to maintain brand credibility, it’s difficult to grasp the Erisco food owner’s predicament. However, different individuals might have handled the situation differently or chose to overlook it entirely.

Regardless of one’s stance, Chioma, the Facebook user, exceeded her boundaries, and both parties seem driven by personal vendettas.

Before asserting that Chioma merely provided a product review, it’s essential to consider the Oxford dictionary definition of a review, which says thus: “A report in a newspaper, magazine, or online platform where someone offers their opinion on a book, play, film, product, etc”.

Given this definition, it’s evident that Chioma’s actions regarding the Erisco product went beyond a review as she made allegations without providing enough evidence. The court will ultimately determine the nature of her actions, but based on this definition, it’s clear she did more than review the product, which is the crux of the matter.

On her Facebook timeline, Chioma made an allegation that the particular Erisco product, Nagiko tomato is “k!lling people.” It’s challenging to comprehend the implications of someone accusing your product of causing harm on a platform with over two billion users globally. This extends beyond the definition of a review, and we await the court’s ruling on the matter.

In this part of the world, there’s been significant misuse of free speech and social media, which the Erisco Chairman aims to address through this case. Erisco foods vs. Chioma.

While Chioma may have acted within her rights, the serious allegation she made needs clarification to prevent long-term damage to the Erisco brand. It’s reasonable for the Chairman to demand evidence to support her claims. “She who alleges must prove.”

My heart goes out to Chioma, her family, and their ordeal. If possible, I would advise those involved to explore options for settling out of court to spare them further distress.

Based on my limited understanding, I doubt this case will favor Chioma, given the Erisco Chairman’s determination to protect the integrity of his brand, even if it means losing “few” customers on the short run and being dragged by the mob like a tiger generator.

In all, I wish both parties the very best.

©Uloka Chibuike