The Managing Director of Dorigold Enterprises Limited, Egbogu-Onyeka Ogochukwu, has dragged the Nigeria Police Force, the Police Service Commission (PSC), the Inspector-General of Police, and other parties before the Federal High Court in Abuja, accusing them of harassment, intimidation, and abuse of power over what she described as a purely civil dispute.
In the fundamental rights enforcement suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1432/2026, Ogochukwu and her company are seeking N20 billion in exemplary damages, alleging that senior police officers were used by private individuals to intimidate and persecute her.
Also joined as respondents are the Deputy Inspector-General of Police in charge of the Force Criminal Investigation Department (FCID), Esther Nkama Animashaun, trading as ELSH Luxury Design, and Obiageli Nkama.
According to court documents filed by her lawyer, Sylvanus E.O.B. Maliki, the applicants accused the respondents of repeated police invitations, threats of arrest, unlawful intimidation, public humiliation, and an alleged illegal raid on their Abuja residence.
They asked the court to declare that the respondents violated their constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty, privacy, fair hearing, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and freedom of association as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
In an affidavit supporting the suit, Daniel Ogboji, a litigation executive with Oxygen Chambers, said he deposed on behalf of Ogochukwu because she was allegedly being “hunted” by police officers acting at the instance of the fifth and sixth respondents.
The affidavit claimed that Ogochukwu met Animashaun through a mutual acquaintance at the Commonwealth of Zion Assembly (COZA) in Abuja in March 2025 and later accommodated her and her children after learning she faced eviction from her rented apartment.
Ogochukwu alleged that she spent millions of naira supporting Animashaun, including N2m as a gift, N4.15m for rent, N6m for vehicle repairs and N3m for school fees, among other financial assistance.
She further claimed that despite the support, Animashaun later drove away one of her vehicles and allegedly sold it without her consent after their relationship deteriorated.
According to the court filings, Animashaun allegedly threatened to use family members serving in the Nigeria Police Force to “deal with” Ogochukwu and force her out of Abuja.
The applicants further alleged that on June 20, 2026, about five police officers led by Obiageli Nkama stormed Ogochukwu’s residence in Kuchiyako Annex, Kuje, Abuja, without a search warrant or court order.
They alleged that the officers searched the property and carted away a vehicle, international passports belonging to Ogochukwu, her children, employees and clients, as well as educational certificates, mobile phones, marriage and birth certificates and other personal belongings.
The suit also alleged that the officers publicly branded Ogochukwu a criminal before neighbours, thereby damaging her reputation.
According to the applicants, they have continued to receive WhatsApp messages and telephone calls from police officers allegedly threatening prolonged detention, forcing them to abandon both their residence and business premises for fear of arrest.
They maintained that the dispute between Ogochukwu and Animashaun was civil in nature and accused the police of allowing themselves to be used to settle a private disagreement.
The applicants argued that although the police have constitutional powers to investigate criminal allegations, such powers must not be deployed to intimidate citizens or resolve private disputes.
They are asking the court to declare the alleged invasion of their residence and seizure of their property unconstitutional, order the immediate return of all items allegedly taken during the operation, and restrain the respondents from further inviting, arresting, detaining or harassing them except in accordance with due process and a valid court order.
In addition, they are seeking N20bn in exemplary damages against the respondents jointly and severally.
