Family raises alarm over detained Chappal Energies CEO, petitions Tinubu

The family of detained businessman and Chief Executive Officer of Chappal Energies, Mr Ufoma Joseph Immanuel, has raised fresh concerns over his health, safety and treatment in custody, alleging that the businessman has been subjected to degrading conditions while facing prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over a disputed $1.5 million oil transaction.

The family, speaking through the Initiative for Media Development and Social Impact (IMEDSI), has petitioned President Bola Tinubu, calling for an independent review of the circumstances surrounding Immanuel’s detention and urging authorities to guarantee his safety, access to legal representation and compliance with court orders.

At the centre of the family’s concerns is Immanuel’s current medical condition and what it described as his treatment at the Lagos State University Teaching Hospital (LASUTH).

According to IMEDSI spokesperson, Ms Onose Oseyi, representatives of the organisation who visited Immanuel at the hospital allegedly found him handcuffed to his hospital bed and unable to move freely.

The family claimed that the restraint was maintained despite medical advice that Immanuel should walk periodically to reduce the risk of blood clots associated with prolonged immobility.

“This is inhuman and degrading treatment for a man who has not been convicted of any offence, and it now stands as a direct threat to his life and health, on top of everything else he has endured,” Oseyi said.

IMEDSI subsequently demanded the immediate removal of the restraint and called for authorities to publicly identify who authorised the decision to handcuff a hospitalised detainee to his bed.

The allegation authorities must investigate

READ ALSO; Falana aks EFCC to probe N33.75bn unaccounted cash transfers to poor Nigerians

Beyond the hospital incident, the family has raised a more serious allegation involving an alleged threat to Immanuel’s life.

The family claimed that Immanuel approached the Department of State Services (DSS) in February 2026 to report alleged threats against him by businessman Adebisi Adebutu.

Rather than receiving protection, the family alleged, Immanuel was detained and subsequently transferred to EFCC custody.

The family further alleged that during a settlement meeting concerning the disputed business transaction, Adebutu allegedly warned that Immanuel would die in Kirikiri if he refused to surrender his shares in the venture.

IMEDSI stressed that it was not presenting the allegation as an established fact. However, it argued that the seriousness of the claim warrants an independent investigation, particularly because the allegation concerns the safety of a person currently in state custody.

The family said the matter was also brought to the attention of the British High Commission, which it claimed subsequently sent a consular official to check on Immanuel’s welfare at the Kirikiri Correctional Centre.

A commercial dispute or criminal case?

Immanuel is standing trial before the Lagos State Special Offences Court in a case instituted by the EFCC.

The anti-graft agency alleges that Immanuel and his company, Intermediate Investment Holdings Limited (IIHL), obtained approximately $1.5 million from Adebutu and R28 Holdings Limited under false pretences.

Immanuel pleaded not guilty when he was arraigned.

However, his family disputes the characterisation of the underlying controversy as a straightforward fraud case. It maintains that the dispute arose from a commercial and shareholding disagreement involving an investment made toward the acquisition of an oil-related asset.

According to the family, the asset was eventually acquired, with the transaction subsequently completed and publicly announced.

It further claimed that decisions from the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory and the Federal High Court had characterised aspects of the disagreement as a civil shareholding dispute.

The family’s position raises a central question that will ultimately have to be determined through the judicial process: whether the circumstances surrounding the investment constitute a criminal offence, as alleged by the EFCC, or a commercial disagreement that subsequently escalated into criminal proceedings.

Questions over bail and custody

The family also alleged that Immanuel has repeatedly been denied bail and, on one occasion, was removed from LASUTH in the middle of the night.

It argued that his continued detention should not result in the suspension of his fundamental rights or expose him to unnecessary risks to his health.

“ A criminal allegation does not amount to a conviction. Remand does not amount to imprisonment after trial. Custody does not extinguish dignity,” the statement said.

The family also raised concerns over alleged restrictions on access to lawyers and what it described as instances of non-compliance with court orders.

These claims, if established, could raise broader questions about the treatment of defendants awaiting trial and the responsibilities of law-enforcement and correctional authorities towards detainees receiving medical treatment.

Calls for independent scrutiny

IMEDSI said its intervention was not intended to determine Immanuel’s guilt or innocence or interfere with the proceedings before the court.

Rather, it argued that the government retains an obligation to protect the life, dignity and health of a person in its custody, regardless of the allegations against him.

The organisation called on President Tinubu to ensure that Immanuel’s rights are protected and urged the EFCC, the judiciary and the Nigeria Correctional Service to ensure strict compliance with applicable court orders.

It also called on the National Human Rights Commission and other civil society organisations to independently monitor the case, particularly the allegations concerning Immanuel’s health, alleged threats to his life, access to counsel and conditions of detention.

For now, the criminal case remains before the Lagos State Special Offences Court, where the allegations against Immanuel and IIHL will be tested through due process.

But the controversy surrounding his detention has opened a second front—one that extends beyond the disputed $1.5 million transaction to questions about medical care, custodial restraints, alleged threats, access to justice and the treatment of an accused person who has not been convicted.