Sesi-Edem Lawyers Challenge Reports On EOCO Injunction Status

Lawyers for Sesi-Edem Company Limited have pushed back against reports suggesting that the Economic and Organised Crime Office can proceed freely against the company and its directors, insisting that a High Court order restraining the state agency is still legally active.

In a statement issued on April 25, 2026, Knightscild Chambers, counsel for the company, said the public narrative around the case had been misrepresented. The firm described claims that EOCO is now at liberty to investigate Sesi-Edem as inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by the current state of the court proceedings.

"That assertion is wrong as a matter of law and fact," Knightscild Chambers stated.

The dispute centres on an injunction initially granted by the High Court on April 14, 2026. According to the lawyers, while that interim order was originally granted for a ten-day period, Sesi-Edem filed a fresh application for an interlocutory injunction on April 17. They argue that the filing changed the legal position and kept the restraining order alive until the court determines the pending application.

Lawyers Say Injunction Continues By Law

Knightscild Chambers relied on Order 25 rule 10 to support its position, saying the interim injunction did not simply expire because the original ten-day period had passed. The firm said the law allows the order to continue where an interlocutory injunction application has been filed and remains undetermined.

"Under Order 25 rule 10... the interim injunction continues in force pending the determination of that application," the statement said, adding that the order "remains in force by operation of law."

The lawyers therefore maintain that EOCO remains restricted and that any reporting which gives the impression that the agency has been cleared to proceed without limitation misstates the legal effect of the pending application. They said the matter is still before the court and should be reported with care.

The statement also referred to an affidavit reportedly filed by EOCO on April 21. In that filing, according to Knightscild Chambers, the agency denied that it had declared the company and its directors wanted. The lawyers said that position was difficult to reconcile with the public effect of EOCO's earlier publications.

"EOCO now contends... that it never declared the Company and its directors 'wanted', and that its press releases were issued merely for purposes of media engagement. That position is, to put it mildly, remarkable," the lawyers said.

Firm Criticises EOCO's Handling Of The Matter

Knightscild Chambers argued that EOCO knew the directors of Sesi-Edem were not fugitives and had no valid basis to publish material that suggested otherwise. The firm said the agency's conduct could not be treated as ordinary media engagement, especially where the publications affected the reputation and constitutional rights of the company and its directors.

The lawyers accused EOCO of misusing institutional power, saying the agency's actions carried serious consequences for the individuals and business involved. They also linked the latest dispute to an earlier High Court ruling delivered on March 19, 2026.

In that ruling, according to the statement, the High Court found that EOCO had acted outside its statutory mandate and breached the constitutional rights of Sesi-Edem Company Limited. Knightscild Chambers said that decision remains an important part of the broader case and should guide how the agency and the public discuss the matter.

The lawyers further noted that EOCO's Board has directed management to comply strictly with the injunction. For Sesi-Edem's counsel, that directive reinforces the view that the restraining order should not be treated as spent or irrelevant while the interlocutory application remains pending.

For the public, the immediate issue is clarity. Court orders can affect how state bodies proceed, how affected parties respond, and how the media frames ongoing disputes. Knightscild Chambers' statement therefore seeks to draw a firm line between EOCO's investigative powers generally and the specific restrictions the lawyers say are currently imposed by the High Court in this matter.

That distinction is central to the company's complaint and to the warning issued to publishers.

Media Outlets Asked To Correct Reports

Knightscild Chambers is now demanding corrections from media outlets that reported that EOCO was free to investigate the company. The firm warned that continued publication of that position could create legal exposure, especially if it suggests that the court order no longer binds EOCO.

"Continued publication... suggesting that EOCO is 'free to investigate'... may amount to contempt of court," the statement warned.

The company says it reserves all its rights in the matter. The lawyers' position is that until the High Court determines the pending interlocutory injunction application, the existing restraint remains in force and public commentary should reflect that status.

The next key step is the court's determination of the interlocutory injunction application. Until then, the company's lawyers say EOCO, affected media houses, and the public must treat the existing order as binding and avoid statements that could undermine the authority of the court.

The case adds another layer to the continuing legal confrontation between Sesi-Edem and EOCO, with the company insisting that the issue is not merely about investigation but about adherence to court orders, statutory limits, and constitutional protections.