The trial of a business entity accused of producing substandard sachet water and obstructing regulatory officials resumed yesterday at the Federal High Court in Asaba, Delta State, with fresh testimonies from the Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON) detailing alleged violation of quality regulations.
The case brought by SON against the director of Address Table Water is being heard before Justice OlufumilayoAgbaje at the Federal High Court in Asaba.
The defendant is facing a 10-count charge bordering on alleged production of substandard sachet water, harassment of SON officials and obstruction of regulatory duties, all offences said to contravene provisions of the Standards Organisation of Nigeria Act 2015.
During the resumed hearing, the prosecution’s principal witness, Delta State Coordinator of SON, MsNnenneEgbo, narrated to the court the circumstances surrounding the agency’s inspection and enforcement activities at the Address Table Water factory.
Led in evidence by prosecution counsel, J. Ogoadinma, Egbo told the court that officials of SON had visited the factory in February 2022 as part of routine regulatory enforcement and compliance checks.
According to her, when the agency attempted to present official correspondence and laboratory test results to the company’s director, but he allegedly refused to accept the documents.
Egbo tendered many official documents before the court, including letters and inspection reports, which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibits A to F.
She also informed the court that on February 7, 2022, she personally visited the factory to present a letter of introduction and other regulatory notices to the defendant.
“I can recognise the letters by their headings and dates,” she said, noting that they included notices of inspection and letters informing the company of regulatory violations.
During cross-examination, defence counsel, C. Anyafulu, questioned the intent behind SON officials’ visit to the factory on February 22, 2022.
The defence claimed that the visit was primarily aimed at generating internally generated revenue (IGR) through certification rather than conducting a quality inspection.
However, Egbo rejected the claim, insisting that the visit was for inspection, invitation and enforcement purposes, in line with the agency’s statutory responsibilities.
“I disagree with that suggestion,” she told the court, stressing that the officials were performing routine regulatory oversight.
She further stated that the product could not be tested on-site because the factory did not have a testing kit available at the time.
Egbo told the court that samples of the company’s sachet water were eventually collected and sent to a laboratory in Lagos for analysis.
According to her, the specimens were transported to Ogba, Lagos, where they underwent laboratory testing before the results were sent back to the company.
The director of Address Table Water, she said, refused to collect the laboratory report when it was presented to him.
Responding to questions suggesting that the report had not been communicated to the defendant, Egbo maintained that the report was indeed delivered but was rejected.
Proceedings briefly took a tense turn during cross-examination when the defence counsel continued to challenge the admissibility and credibility of the documents presented by the prosecution.
Justice Agbaje cautioned the defence counsel against prolonging the proceedings unnecessarily and adjourned till June 1, 2026 for continuation of trial.
In this article