IS HOS Raymond UCHEOMA COVERING UP SEXUAL HARASSMENT?

By Chinenye Ukpabia

The lawyer for a female security officer in Imo State has been quoted as saying that the Imo Head of Service, Barrister Raymond Ucheoma, is not interested in getting justice for his client. Barrister J. L. Okoro, who filed a petition with the HOS over allegations of sexual harassment and hostile work environment on behalf of Ms. Moudline Chika Durueke, says that the HOS appears more interested in finding a technicality on which to avoid addressing the matter.

Barrister Okoro had filed the complaint against the HOD of Accounts in the Ministry of Homeland Security and Vigilante Affairs, Mr. Christian Chukwuma Osuagwu. In the complaint, the security officer alleged that Osuagwu made repeated romantic advances to her. Upon refusing the unwanted sexual advances, Osuagwu took advantage of the dissolution of the governor’s cabinet, to punish her by seeking to sack her, withhold her monthly allowance, or transfer her out of the ministry. According to sources in the ministry, the Commissioner who established the ministry, Dr. Ugorji O. Ugorji, had held a meeting with HODs in 2023 to address reported cases of unwanted sexual harassment by supervisors in the workplace. Two people who attended the meeting said that Dr. Ugorji was particularly concerned about protecting women in the workplace from sexual harassment, as per best practices in human resources management.

However,  Moudline’s Lawyer alleged that the HOS, Ucheoma, sat on the complaint for weeks without action, adding that it was only after she wrote a reminder to him, that an Admin Officer in the Office of the HOS wrote to Durueke through her lawyer, asking her to come and “explain” her complaint.

This reporter gathered that the HOS scheduled two meetings with Durueke and her lawyer, and each time the complainant and her lawyer showed up for the scheduled meeting, the HOS was not available, thereby punishing the complainant who had to pay her lawyer’s Appearance fees.

Meanwhile, the HOS finally met with them at the third scheduled meeting on March, 19, 2024, two people who were present stated that the HOS appeared not interested in the serious complaint of sexual harassment and hostile work environment against one of his managers in the Secretariat.

He seemed only interested in the employment status of the complainant. Relying on the technicality that the complainant was not a “Civil Servant,” the HOS sought to wash his hands off the matter.

Nonetheless, the facts that the accused is a Civil Servant and that the alleged incidents took place and are still taking place in the Secretariat where he is the boss, did not seam to matter to the HOS at the meeting.

Reacting to this Development, Durueke and her lawyer expressed shock when one of the female Directors at the Office of the HOS, who was present at the meeting, advised Durueke, with the apparent blessing of the HOS, that she should abandon her complaint because she was not yet married. The female Director opined that pursuing the complaint would expose the complainant to embarrassment, which may prevent her from getting married.

The HOS was present when that seemingly  planted advise was given, at a meeting where a woman was seeking justice over sexual harassment and hostile work environment. He did not rebuke the advice, indicating that he at least endorsed it. In other words, another woman sought to further frustrate a fellow woman by advising her to drop her complaint because she, the complainant, needed to get married.

The HOS reportedly feigned and continues to feign interest in the Complainant’s “embarrassment,” instead of focusing on justice for her pain, suffering, and humiliation in the hands of unscrupulous and  unethical managers under his supervision.

The questions are: Why does the HOS appear to be interested in covering up allegations of sexual harassment? Why does he want the woman to drop her complaint without an investigation? Why is he interested in the complainant’s “embarrassment” instead of justice for her? Why is he reaching out to the complainant directly to ask her to stop Journalists from “embarrassing” her by writing about the story, instead of reaching her through her lawyer, who the HOS knows represents her? Has the HOS been lied to or has he been compromised by the accused harassers? Will women Permanent Secretaries, Acting Permanent Secretaries,  Directors and Managers in Imo Civil Service sit and watch a fellow Woman vilified and punished for allegedly refusing sexual advances from a male Manager?

Will the HOS continue to protect sick Mangers at the expense of the reputation of the service and the State? Will Managers in Civil Service, who demand sexual favours for job protect or career advancement of a subordinate, continue to be protected?