The owner of Anambra Boutique takes Nafdac to court over the alleged looting of goods during Onitsha Drug Market Raid

Saharan Porters reported that Ms. Okoye lamented that she lost goods worth more than N15m after her boutique was looted by suspected soldiers deployed by Nafdac. Mrs. Sophia Eberechukwu Okoye, a young entrepreneur of the Anambra state, who owns a boutique in Onitsha, served the National Agency for Food, Drug Administration and Control (Nafdac) of legal action on alleged looting soldiers during an attack on the Ogwu. In the notice provided by her legal representative, Barrister IFEANYI EJIOFOR of IC EJIOFOR & CO. -Articial firm, served, said Ms. Okoye claimed the amount of N22 million, which she said verified the assessed and verified value of her goods placed from her shop. Saharan Porters reported that Ms. Okoye lamented that she lost goods worth more than N15m after her boutique was looted by suspected soldiers deployed by Nafdac. Ms. Okoye’s boutique, which she opened just a few months before, was one of dozens of stores that allegedly broke in and came up during the operation. Saharan Porters have learned that the looters are hiding clothes, shoes and other valuables from the store, which counts Okoye and other affected traders. ‘The shop was discovered 24 hours after Nafdac withdrew its soldiers on March 7, 2025,’ a human rights organization, the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rrears of Law (Intersociety), told Saharan Porters. “Evidence, including video clips and CCTV footage, connects Nafdac to the looting. The burglary and relocation of the agency store is even sealed with Nafdac’s Insignia.” Items made out of me. Okoye’s boutique was stolen, included Turkish clothing, Chinese jeans, up-and-down pants and Italian sandals, with an estimated value of more than N15 million, Saharara Porters learned. This incident contributes to the growing concern about Nafdac’s operations in the Onitsha Drug Market. In video clips shared with Saharan Porters are Ms. Okoye sawed uncontrollably as she showed her empty shop stripped with nothing left behind. Ejiofor in the notice of legal action said that the ‘security operations stationed at Ogbo Ogwu Bridge Head Market to guard the market within this period that it was under a total incarceration, rather than working within their operating guideline, was a bit busy with stores in the market, especially stores, or otherwise. Head Bridge Market, was vandalized by these operatives, and goods worth millions of Naira looted by this operative. “The inventory of these goods is away from the store of our customer, and the purchase of receiving a significant part of these goods indicating the prices they bought, and brands of the stolen objects, is hereby attached for your reference ease.” This is clear from the lists of the missing goods, and the purchase of the goods that are clearly identified, especially if they mainly wear, shoes, belts and clothing; That the goods of our client have no connection, shine or connection to drugs, nor do she trade on any kind of medicine or even in her store. “Further facts emerged as clearly captured in a video clip taken by our client, and it clearly determined that the store of our client was vandalized and carefully looted, as there was no scintilla of evidence available to indicate that the discovery of incriminating drugs or drugs in the store of our client, and it is not a heartbeat.” Mixing economic downturn, which seems to have placed our client in a very difficult economic situation. “We are not aware of any statutory provision or existing legislation that empowered security operations to break into Die Burger’s shop and steal from it.” The lawyer further said: “It is against the background of the foregoing that we best encourage you to take every legitimate step towards the settlement of this verified value of our client’s total goods, to return our client to her business.” So note that if we are a good question, and that our customers in the customer cannot meet, we will not be to get the suitability, we will not be, we will not the levy the prevailing circumstance. “May we also emphasize that this correspondence will serve as much as a notice of the agency, to confirm any further legal action we want to take on behalf of our client, whose details and details of this have been sufficient.”