The defendants are; Precious Eze, Olawale Rotimi, Rowland Olonishuwa, and Seun Odunlami. They were re-arraigned on a 10-count charge of alleged publication of false allegations through various social media platforms, against Guaranty Trust Holding Company (GTCO).
The charges bordered on conspiracy, cyberstalking, false and misleading publications, extortion, threat, and attempt to cause loss of shares and market value.
They were first arraigned on September 27, before Justice Ayokunle Faji, on a two-count charge bordering on the alleged offences. Although they pleaded not guilty to the charge, Justice Faji had ordered their remand in the correctional centre.
At the resumed hearing on Monday, the prosecutor Ajibola Aribisala (SAN), told the court that there was an amended 10-count charge against the defendants. He told the court that he got a fiat from the Inspector-General of Police to prosecute the case and prayed to the court for a fresh charge to be read to the defendants.
The defendants again, pleaded not guilty to the charge. The court again, ordered remand of the defendants pending hearing of their bail applications.
Faji adjourned the case until October 24 and also ordered the prosecutor to file his proof of evidence. Earlier, defence counsel, Olakunle Afolabi, objected to the new charges on the grounds that he had just been served and needed time to go through the amended charge.
Responding, the prosecutor said being a human rights lawyer, he was also concerned about the rights and liberties of the defendants. He consequently read the amended charge to the defendants.
According to the charge, the defendants and others, at large conspired to commit the alleged offence sometime in August in Lagos.
They were alleged to have conspired to cyberstalk and publish false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations against GTCO and its management. He alleged that the defendants made false publications to use the same to cause harm to the reputation of the company and the entire banking system.
They were also alleged to have attempted to use the allegations to extort the company and affect the market value of their shares, by causing them to lose value considerably. The offence, according to him, contravenes the provisions of sections 27 (1) (a), (b),24 (1)(b), and 24 (2) (c) (ii) of the Cybercrimes Prohibition, Prevention Act 2015.
