CEO Emmanuel Shoon Patrick Denies Criminality, Threatens Legal Action Over Reports

Ambassador Emmanuel Shoon Patrick, Excel Optoelectronics Company Limited and its Chief Executive Officer, have strongly denied allegations of fraud, fund diversion, and non-performance contained in media reports published on December 16, 2025, and February 5, 2026, describing the claims as inaccurate, misleading, and damaging to their reputation.

In a comprehensive Right of Reply issued to the media, the company stated that the publications—headlined “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”—mischaracterised what it described as a purely commercial dispute as established criminal conduct.

The company faulted the reports for allegedly failing to seek its response prior to publication, a development it said contravenes Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution, the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ) Code of Ethics, and fundamental principles of fair hearing and balanced reporting.

Excel Optoelectronics also alleged editorial bias, noting that while the identity of the complainant was withheld, the company and its CEO were fully identified and portrayed in criminal terms. It argued that this selective exposure amounted to a “trial by media” and suggested an abuse of editorial discretion rooted in a private commercial disagreement.

Company Explains Transaction

According to Excel Optoelectronics, the dispute arose from a business transaction initiated around December 1, 2025, when Folio Media Group Ltd., through its publisher Mr. Fidelis Anosike, requested the supply and installation of LED screens at the Port Harcourt International Airport on a credit basis.
The company said it declined to supply the equipment entirely on credit, citing internal policy, but agreed—as a gesture of goodwill—to release a single unit upon receipt of a ₦10 million deposit against an invoice of ₦28,332,372, inclusive of VAT. It stressed that the invoice clearly stated that all payments were non-refundable.

Excel Optoelectronics explained that the deposit was made with full knowledge of the agreed terms and that no additional payments were subsequently received. It added that all applicable taxes were duly accounted for and that no public funds or government revenues were involved or compromised.

The company maintained that the matter remains a contractual dispute currently subject to legal processes, insisting that it should not have been presented as criminal wrongdoing.

It further dismissed allegations of tax evasion, money laundering, or diversion of funds, describing them as unsupported by transaction records.

Calls for Correction and Apology

Excel Optoelectronics has demanded the publication of its Right of Reply with equal prominence as the original reports, the withdrawal or correction of statements implying criminal conduct, amendments or removal of the online publications, and a public apology.
While stating a preference for editorial resolution, the company warned that it would pursue legal and regulatory remedies, including petitions to the NUJ and civil actions for defamation, should corrective measures not be taken within a reasonable timeframe.

The company reaffirmed its commitment to ethical business practices, stressing that it would not accept reputational damage arising from what it described as the misuse of media platforms to escalate private commercial disputes.