By Izunna Okafor, Awka
The Anambra State Police Command has denied allegations that its officers demanded ₦100,000 in connection with a missing $500 wristwatch reported at Abagana Police Division, explaining that the case arose from conflicting accounts over how the watch was received, transferred and allegedly discarded.
The State’s Police Police Public Relations Officer, SP Tochukwu Ikenga, made the clarification in a statement issued on Thursday, October 22, following a complaint involving the missing wristwatch and allegations of unlawful detention and an alleged demand for money during the police investigation.
This reporter, Izunna Okafor, gathered that the police clarification is coming amid public controversy sparked by a video that went viral on social media on Thursday, in which a 15-year-old vulcanizer’s apprentice was reported to have narrated his alleged ordeal in police custody over a missing wristwatch. In the video, the teenager reportedly claimed that he was arrested on Saturday, October 17, and released on Wednesday, October 21, while social media reports surrounding the incident also raised concerns about the circumstances of his detention and that of his employer.
The viral report further alleged that the teenager was physically assaulted at his master’s workshop before being taken into custody, making netizens to question why a minor would allegedly be detained for days over a disputed wristwatch. The controversy also triggered allegations of extortion, including claims that ₦100,000 was demanded in connection with the case, prompting the Anambra State Police Command to issue its clarification, deny demanding the money and provide its account of how the wristwatch was received, transferred and allegedly discarded.
According to the Police statement, the matter was reported on October 17 by a complainant who said a relative abroad had sent the wristwatch for delivery to their uncle in Nawfia, but the item could not be found.
Preliminary investigations, as explained by the police spokesman, showed that the complainant’s brother had been entrusted with the watch for onward delivery to the intended recipient.
However, acting on the description that was given to him that a tyre is usually parked in front of his uncle’s shop, the brother reportedly went to a vulcanising workshop where he saw a tyre. There , he reportedly met one Igwe Arinze, whom he mistakenly believed to be an employee of his uncle.
SP Ikenga said Arinze reportedly told the visitor that his master was away, and the visitor subsequently handed over the wristwatch to him for onward delivery to his Boss, thinking that the boss was the uncle whom the watch was meant for. The brother allegedly did not realize that he had gone to the wrong premises.
The confusion reportedly came to light when the intended recipient denied receiving the watch, prompting the police to invite Arinze to the Division for questioning.
According to the Police Spokesman, during the interview, Arinze reportedly admitted and explained that the watch had been given to him for safekeeping and that he later handed it over to his master, identified as Simon Tochukwu, when he returned.
SP Ikenga, however, disclosed that efforts to reach Tochukwu were initially unsuccessful because he was away. He eventually returned on October 20 and reportedly admitted receiving the wristwatch from his employee.
However, Tochukwu allegedly told police investigators that he later returned the item to the employee and instructed him to discard it because he believed it was an old wristwatch.
Further questioning indicated that the $500 wristwatche had allegedly been thrown into a pile of discarded tyres, but subsequent efforts to recover it were unsuccessful, according to the police statement.
SP Ikenga explained that the parties were questioned over their respective roles because of the conflicting accounts and the need to establish the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the property.
He added that, after the interviews, the suspect was released and directed to return to the Division on October 23 for further clarification and follow-up efforts to determine the whereabouts of the missing wristwatch.
Addressing the allegation that ₦100,000 was demanded during the handling of the case, the Command expressly denied the claim, maintaining that the police intervention was aimed at establishing how the wristwatch was received, transferred and allegedly disposed of.
The Command also maintained that its officers were expected to perform their duties professionally, impartially and in accordance with the law, adding that any complaint of misconduct brought to its attention would be treated seriously.
According to the statement, the investigation remains ongoing, and appropriate lawful steps will be taken after the necessary investigative processes have been concluded.
The police further urged members of the public who have genuine concerns about police conduct to report them through the appropriate channels, while assuring residents of its commitment to professionalism, accountability and the protection of individual rights.
Watch the video below:
){kind=link}