The Okija Peace and Resolution Committee has withdrawn from mediating the debt dispute involving Costyken Tochukwu Igboekweze and his creditors following his failure to honour a repayment commitment and the inability of the creditors to reach a consensus on the next line of action.
The nine-man committee had intervened after complaints arose from business transactions conducted through the Okija Solution Movement platform, where Igboekweze had collected funds from several individuals but failed to deliver on agreed terms.
During deliberations with the committee, Igboekweze acknowledged the debts and voluntarily undertook to pay over 70 per cent of the outstanding sum on or before Saturday, February 7, 2026. The committee, acting in line with due process, allowed the deadline to fully elapse before taking further steps.
However, as at 11:59pm on the agreed date, no payment was made. Subsequent engagements revealed that the debtor was still unable to raise the promised funds.
Following this development, the committee presented the creditors with structured options, including a proposal to jointly engage relevant security agencies for lawful recovery of the funds. The creditors were given until 4:00pm on Sunday, February 8, 2026, to indicate their preferred option.
Only four out of ten creditors accepted the option involving collaboration with security agencies, while the remaining creditors did not formally indicate acceptance of any option. As majority consent was not secured, the committee resolved to discontinue further mediation.
Speaking to journalists after the committee stepped aside, Frank Igbojindu, GMD, Akpoazaa Group and former Convener of the Peace and Resolution Committee, said the intervention was guided solely by the interest of peace.
“Our involvement was never about taking sides or shielding anyone. It was strictly about preventing escalation, maintaining peace in Okija, and ensuring that due process was followed,” he said.
Igbojindu explained that the committee acted in good faith by respecting the repayment timeline proposed by the debtor.
“The promise to pay over 70 per cent was voluntarily made by Costyken himself. The committee waited until the agreed deadline elapsed before concluding that the commitment was not fulfilled,” he stated.
He added that the committee’s withdrawal was a principled decision.
“Once it became clear that the debtor failed to meet his obligation and the creditors could not reach a majority agreement on the options provided, it was only proper for the committee to step aside. Mediation cannot continue without collective consent,” he noted.
According to him, while engagement with lawful authorities remains the most responsible route for debt recovery, further steps now rest with the creditors.
“As a committee, we have done our part transparently and without personal interest. Our actions were guided by peace, fairness, and community harmony,” he said.
The committee has since formally dissolved, allowing the creditors to pursue recovery through lawful means of their choosing.
