Excel Optoelectronics, CEO Deny Fraud Allegations, Demand Retraction From Daily Times
Excel Optoelectronics Company Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, Ambassador Emmanuel Shoon Patrick, have strongly refuted allegations of fraud, fund diversion, and non-performance contained in publications dated December 16, 2025, and February 5, 2026, describing the reports as inaccurate, misleading, and injurious to their reputation.
In a detailed Right of Reply addressed to the media, the company said the reports—titled “Chinese Excel-Led, Nigerian Fixers Swindle FG in Multi-Million Naira Airport” and “FCCPC Refers Chinese Excel-Led, Emmanuel Shoon Patrick to IGP for Criminal Prosecution”—wrongly portrayed a commercial disagreement as established criminal conduct.
Excel Optoelectronics faulted the publications for allegedly failing to seek its response before publication, a lapse it said violated Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Ethics, and basic principles of fair hearing and balance.
The company further alleged editorial bias, noting that while the identity of the complainant was shielded, the company and its CEO were fully named and portrayed in criminal terms. It argued that this selective exposure amounted to “trial by media” and suggested abuse of editorial influence linked to a private commercial dispute.
Commercial Transaction Explained
According to the company, the matter arose from a transaction initiated on or about December 1, 2025, when Folio Media Group Ltd., through its publisher, Mr. Fidelis Anosike, requested the supply and installation of LED screens on credit at Port Harcourt International Airport.
Excel Optoelectronics stated that it declined to release products on full credit in line with company policy but, as a gesture of goodwill, agreed to release a single unit upon payment of a ₦10 million deposit against an invoice of ₦28,332,372, inclusive of VAT. The invoice, the company said, clearly stated that payments were non-refundable.
The firm explained that the deposit was made with full knowledge of the agreed terms and that no further payments were received. It maintained that all tax obligations were preserved and that no public funds or government revenue were compromised.
Excel Optoelectronics insisted that the dispute remains a commercial matter currently subject to legal proceedings and should not have been framed as criminal wrongdoing. It also rejected claims of tax evasion, money laundering, or diversion of funds, describing them as unsupported by transaction records.
Demand for Redress
The company has demanded the publication of its Right of Reply with prominence comparable to the original reports, withdrawal or correction of allegations suggesting criminal conduct, removal or amendment of the online publications, and a public apology.
While expressing a preference for editorial resolution, Excel Optoelectronics warned that it would pursue legal and regulatory remedies—including petitions to the NUJ and civil actions for defamation—if corrective steps are not taken within a reasonable time.
The company reaffirmed its commitment to ethical business practices and said it would not submit to reputational harm arising from what it described as the misuse of media platforms to prosecute private commercial disagreements.
