Smear campaigns against police officers are becoming disturbingly common, eroding both public confidence and the morale of those tasked with upholding the law. The recent case involving Investigative Police Officers illustrates how easily facts can be twisted into scandal, with damaging consequences for both individuals and institutions.
This is not the first time an investigation has been weaponised against its investigators. Consider the River Park incident weeks ago, when individuals implicated in wrongdoing filed a suit against the Inspector General of Police (IGP) simply for acting on a legitimate petition. That case eventually revealed the complainants were the very subjects of the alleged offence.
Now, we are seeing the same playbook used again—this time to smear a group of police officers, including a Deputy Inspector General of Police, Benjamin Nebolisa Okolo, the DIG in charge of the Force Intelligence Department (FID), a law enforcement officer with an excellent record of service; his Personal Assistant, M. M. Gadzama; and the investigative team of Sunday Agboji and Mathew Abu.
The matter stems from a commercial dispute involving a failed N819 million supply transaction and a shortfall of N150.7 million, between Nostromo Trading Nigeria Ltd—a company engaged in import and export of agricultural goods—and its vendor, Aliyu Abba, CEO of Multi Business Ventures. The company had taken aggressive steps to recover the funds, both from the vendor and from one of its own employees, procurement officer Sajith Mahdu.
However, Mahdu, an Indian national, petitioned the police regarding the treatment meted out to him by his employers. In his petition, he alleged grave human rights infringements, including seizure of his international passport and non-payment of his ten-month salary, among others. The petition, addressed to the IGP, formed the raison d’être for the police investigation.
Instead of focusing on the substance of that dispute, attention has been redirected to allegations that IPO Mathew Abu and his colleague demanded and collected a N750,000 bribe from the vendor—supposedly on behalf of the PA to the DIG of FID, who was allegedly acting on behalf of his boss.
Media outlets, notably Sahara Reporters, ran with the story, portraying the officers as corrupt, casting aspersions on the integrity of DIG Okolo, and even questioning police jurisdiction in what they framed as a civil case between Nostromo and Aliyu Abba. Yet a thorough review of the case reveals no evidence of bribery whatsoever. The police investigation, initiated by Sajith’s petition, culminated in the vendor’s arraignment in court on 4 August. He was remanded in Keffi Prison and later granted bail to two sureties on 6 August.
As it stands, Sajith Mahdu, the procurement officer of Nostromo Trading Nigeria Ltd, is now a prosecution witness against the principal suspect, Aliyu Abba.
So far, these are lawful, transparent investigative steps—not acts of extortion.
The Indian national has stated his side of the case concisely in his petition. The crux of the matter is this: the total amount collected by the suspect, Aliyu Abba, was N948,369,300; he delivered goods worth N835,797,112.50, leaving a balance of N150,074,820 unaccounted for. This is plainly a matter for the courts to determine, not for trial by media. And thus far, the police have simply performed their constitutional role.
The troubling issue here is not the commercial dispute but the narrative being manufactured. Rather than reporting the facts, some outlets have chosen to sensationalise and mislead, creating a perception of police harassment and extortion where none exists. This approach carries broader implications: it undermines legitimate investigations, discourages officers from taking on sensitive cases, and feeds public scepticism about policing as a whole.
Media scrutiny is necessary and healthy in any democracy. Police accountability is vital, and investigative journalism plays a crucial role in exposing genuine misconduct.
However, accountability is not the same as sensationalism. Publishing allegations without proper context, or ignoring evidence that exonerates officers, is not holding power to account—it is distorting it.
If such smear tactics are normalised, it is ordinary citizens who will ultimately suffer. When officers fear backlash for simply doing their jobs, crime flourishes and justice becomes negotiable. What is needed is balance: transparent policing, responsible reporting, and consequences for deliberate misinformation.
IPO Mathew Abu and his colleagues should not have to defend themselves against unfounded bribery claims when the evidence shows their innocence. Likewise, media organisations must uphold the standard of verifying facts before publication. Policing is already a challenging profession; adding baseless smear campaigns only weakens our collective pursuit of justice.
