Lawyers to Amotoi Global Services Limited have asked Aiteo Eastern Exploration and Production Company to immediately retract and apologise for making a “false, malicious and defamatory statement” against their clients or face legal action.
This is following Aiteo’s announcement of the termination of its security surveillance contract with Amotoi based on allegations of involvement in illegal oil bunkering activities against the oil servicing firm.
Amotoi, through its lawyers, expressed dismay, shock and immense disappointment at the manner Aiteo reached and announced its decision to terminate the said surveillance contract.
This was contained in a demand letter signed by Anthony Enyindah, Esq. of Lighthouse Law Partnership and addressed to the Group Managing Director of Aiteo.
Enyindah chided Aiteo for failing to hear from his clients before proceeding to make their decision.
According to him, “Our clients have no quarrels if you desire to terminate any contractual relationship you may have with them; provided you do so in terms of the contract.
“Our clients however take serious exception to the false, malicious, and defamatory statements made by your company against our clients as your company’s reason for terminating the contract.
“Our clients have always been at the disposal of your company. It is therefore curious that your company could not as much as communicate with our clients to know what defense (if any) our clients may have to these most heinous and grievous allegations.”
Enyindah pointed out that while the allegations made against Amotoi are weighty, security agents have neither arrested nor invited any of its staff members for questioning.
He therefore accused Aiteo for being prejudicial in the matter and for making what he termed “far-reaching, irresponsible, and potentially damaging statements” against Amotoi that has been a long-standing business partner of Aiteo without a chance to defend itself.
In his words: “No recognized state security apparatus or law enforcement agency has been mentioned to have either apprehended, questioned, or interviewed our clients or anyone associated with our clients concerning this matter.
“We and our clients are unaware of any security agency that has contacted our clients concerning this matter.
“It is therefore disturbing that a company such as yours, with the array of purportedly talented and knowledgeable staff and professionals at your disposal could make such far-reaching, irresponsible, and potentially damaging statements against a long-standing business partner without allowing the other party to defend itself and especially when the parties (Amotoi and Clement) against whom the allegations of criminality are being made have not even been questioned by the law enforcement agencies.
“This is most prejudicial and taints your company, its statements, processes, and any further or future investigations as far as this matter is concerned.
“The publications that were circulating and based upon which your company’s decision and statements were made are a clear hatchet job.”
The legal practitioner maintained that the initial publications accusing Amotoi of criminality and oil theft is a hatchet job by his client’s competitor’s which he said Aiteo has unknowingly bought into or may have sinister motives as well.
He said: “If you were to study the publications in the various print and online media, you would likely observe that the vocabulary and phrases across all the publications are too similar to have been a coincidence.
“It suggests that the same person(s) wrote the various write-ups with slight modifications and distributed same to several media houses for publication.
“This leads to the reasonable conclusion that either your company has unwittingly bought into a hatchet job or you have sinister motives yourselves.”
Enyindah also pointed out that Aiteo’s statements continue to circulate unabated and have been read by Amotoi’s several business associates, maintaining that the company’s reputation has been damaged across the globe.
He gave the oil firm (Aiteo) a week to publicly refute or apologise for its statement or face legal action.
“Consequently, and based on the instruction of our clients, it is our instruction to demand and we hereby demand that: Not later than July 8, 2024, your company publicly refutes the statements attributed to your company or writes and delivers to our office a letter refuting the said statements, or not later than July 8, 2024, your company writes and delivers to our office a letter of unreserved apology to our clients for the damaging statements attributed to your company.
“Take Notice that should you fail, neglect, or refuse to heed the demands of this letter within the period stated herein, we shall be constrained to execute our client’s instructions to the fullest, including instituting legal action to seek appropriate remedies against your company without further recourse to you,” the lawyer said.
About Author
