The management and legal representatives of Nigerian dancer and hypeman Iweh Odinaka, popularly known as Poco Lee, have clarified that reports linking his arrest in the United Kingdom to alleged drink spiking do not form part of the case currently before a UK court.
Naija News reports that the clarification was made on Tuesday.
According to his management, the case is already before the court, making it inappropriate for members of the public to reach conclusions about the allegations before the legal process is completed.
The team also called on the media and members of the public to be careful about sharing information that has not been verified.
The management particularly rejected reports suggesting that drink spiking was among the allegations against the dancer.
It said such claims were not contained in the charges before the court and warned that adding unrelated details to the case could create confusion and lead to false reports.
The legal team also reminded the public that an allegation does not mean that the person accused has been found guilty.
It said Poco Lee, like any other person facing a criminal case, is entitled to have the matter decided through the proper legal process rather than through public discussions or social media reactions.
The statement read: “We are aware of the ongoing public discussion surrounding allegations made against our client, Poco Lee, currently before the courts in the United Kingdom.
“As this matter is now subject to legal proceedings, we urge the public, media, and all well-meaning individuals to exercise restraint in commenting on the details of the case. Allegations are not evidence of guilt, and no conclusions should be drawn until the matter has been heard and determined through the appropriate legal process.
“We are particularly concerned by the volume of unverified narratives currently circulating, including claims referencing ‘drink spiking,’ amongst other allegations which do not form part any of the allegations or charges before the court.
“Every individual is entitled to a fair hearing and to have their matter determined by due process of law, not by public opinion. We respectfully request that this right be respected in this instance, as it would be for anyone else.”
Follow Us On Google
Join the conversation
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.