La Presse Canada False Publication Against Ekens Azubuike.

COUNTER-ARTICLE / PUBLIC RESPONSE BY EKENS AZUBUIKE

A Call for Accuracy and Fairness: Responding to Misleading Claims Published About Ekens Azubuike

Recall that on 24 June 2000 and 29 May 2024, there were misleading false publications by La Presse on interviews attributed to Copart Canada Inc. that circulated allegations suggesting that I, Ekens Azubuike, was in possession of stolen vehicles. An article falsely associated me with the possession of stolen vehicles.

These assertions have caused significant harm to my personal reputation, professional activities, and community standing.

I am issuing this statement to correct the public record and reaffirm my long-standing position: that I legally purchased the vehicles in question in good faith and paid the full purchase price, without knowledge of any adverse dispute or irregularity by anyone.

I am issuing this statement to address and correct the serious misinformation, false implications, and harmful narratives published by La Presse Canada concerning myself, Ekens Azubuike, and to respond to the role of Copart Canada Inc. and government authorities in shaping an inaccurate public perception to damage my reputation.

The article in question has caused significant damage to my reputation, my livelihood, and my dignity. I categorically reject the allegations and provide the following clarification from my perspective and personal account, supported by the facts that relate to my situation.

My Position Has Been Consistent: I Maintained Innocence Throughout.

At every stage of the proceedings, I consistently and unequivocally maintained that

I acquired the vehicles from lawful sources and in good faith from the Copart agent to whom Copart sold the vehicles before they sold them to me.

I paid full value for each purchase.

Prior to the purchase, I had no idea or information suggesting the vehicles were subject to any claim, theft report, or lien dispute. There was no justification for the police to seize the vehicles from me other than the police protesting a corporate elite out of sympathy and stereotype.

I acted in good faith and in accordance with the law.

These facts were supported by the evidence, receipts, communications, and due diligence steps that any reasonable buyer would undertake.

Media Reporting Failed to Reflect the Full Context

The article published by La Presse presented allegations as though they were not conclusive facts and was without proper investigative journalism.

The complexity of the situation,

The publication was defamatory and scandalous in malice.

The evidence available contradicts the false publications by La Presse.

And the fact that I rejected the allegations and maintained innocence.

The La Presse publisher and writer have a responsibility to verify claims presented to them by the strange Copart Inc. for balanced reporting, especially when reputations, livelihoods, and immigration outcomes are affected.

Actions by Government Agencies Contributed to Misleading Impressions.

Based on the evidence in my case, I believe that certain actions by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) contributed to the creation and amplification of a misleading narrative.

My position is that:

Police investigators adopted a tunnel-vision approach, focusing on confirming suspicions rather than objectively evaluating evidence.

The allegations were only to justify a minimum 6-month sentence, which may serve as grounds for removal proceedings.

This sequence raises concerns about the fairness of processes faced by vocal immigrants who challenge systemic issues.

It is my belief, based on my long and well-documented immigration history, that these allegations were fueled by actions and narratives originating from the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA).

For nearly two decades, CBSA has attempted to remove me from Canada.
In my view, the misleading allegations reproduced by La Presse were shaped in part by CBSA’s efforts to create a narrative that could justify securing a six-month sentence in a threshold that could facilitate deportation.

This background was not disclosed in the media coverage, leaving the public with an incomplete and distorted picture of the facts. I continue to maintain my innocence.

These raise serious concerns and highlight systemic problems acknowledged in many Canadian oversight reports.

Broader Issues: Stereotypes, Criminalization, and Immigrant Vulnerability

The way my case was framed publicly reflects deeper systemic issues:

Racial stereotypes and assumptions about the labeling of false crime often shape the narratives imposed upon vocal immigrants who fight the systematic state party.

Public agencies sometimes rely on criminalization as a tool for removal rather than fair adjudication.

Immigrants who speak openly about systemic inequality often experience forms of reprisal or over-scrutiny.

My experience is not isolated, and it raises important questions about fairness, due process, and media responsibility. Based on the circumstances of the investigation and information disclosed in my legal case, I believe the police investigation suffered from tunnel vision, unverified assumptions, and stereotypes about immigrants and racialized individuals.

Rather than investigating thoroughly and objectively, certain authorities appeared to reach conclusions first and search for evidence afterward.
This type of investigative failure is well recognized in Canadian jurisprudence and has contributed to wrongful accusations in the past.

It raises broader questions about how immigrants, especially Black immigrants, are perceived, targeted, and criminalized based on assumptions rather than facts.

A Broader Issue: Immigrants Who Speak Out Against Systemic Oppression

My case reflects a broader and deeply troubling reality: Immigrants who speak out against systemic issues often face reprisal, surveillance, and heightened suspicion.

When an immigrant challenges institutional conduct, raises concerns about discrimination, or resists systemic oppression, the response can be punitive rather than fair. The false allegations reported about me, allegations unsupported by evidence, fit into that larger pattern.

It raises a fundamental question for the Canadian public:

How safe are immigrants who voice their concerns when authorities can mischaracterize, criminalize, or publicly smear them without accountability?

Issues With Copart Inc. Online Vehicle Auction Practices

The false accusation was calculated and intentional. It is a matter of public record that online vehicle auction systems, including Copart, which has been engaged in an insurance fraud scheme of white-collar crime, have been subjects of criticism and legal scrutiny around transparency, dispute processes, and title accuracy.

My situation demonstrates how buyers can become unwitting victims of disputes in the supply chain, yet still be portrayed as criminals. The police should not have applied stereotypes and tunnel vision in their investigation.

The Human Cost of False Impressions

The consequences of misleading media coverage engaged by La Presse Canada and incomplete investigative narratives extend far beyond the courtroom:

Damage to reputation and professional opportunities, Social stigma, immigration consequences, Emotional and economic hardship

These harms are especially acute for immigrants whose voices are already marginalized. Regardless, I continue to stand firmly by my innocence and by the evidence demonstrating my lawful conduct.

A Call for Responsible Journalism and Fair Process

This response is for a call for accuracy, fairness, and accountability.

I ask that media outlets like La Presse review and correct reporting that did not include my full position or supporting evidence. and readers consider the larger systemic context that shapes how allegations are framed. while those agencies should adopt practices that avoid tunnel vision and ensure objective analysis of facts, because justice requires transparency. Fairness requires that every side of a story be told truthfully.

My Position

I reject the false narrative associating me with stolen vehicles.
I maintain my innocence. And I will continue to fight for fairness, accuracy, and the truth. I call on La Presse Canada and Copart Canada Inc. to review any inaccurate or misleading statements published about me. Correct the public record, and uphold the standards of fairness and accountability expected in Canada. I reserve all rights to pursue further remedies should false or damaging claims continue to circulate.

The Damage Caused by the La Presse False Article

The misinformation published by La Presse has caused. Reputational harm. Business losses. Personal and psychological distress. Complications in my legal and immigration matters. Stigmatization within the community. because the article failed to seek balance, failed to verify facts, and failed to acknowledge the full context.

Conclusion

I maintain that I lawfully purchased the vehicles involved in good faith. I was unaware of any alleged theft or dispute. I cooperated fully and have always maintained innocence. The allegations published about me did not reflect the complete facts, and the resulting harm continues to affect my life and opportunities. This counter-article serves to restore balance, protect my name, and assert the truth:
I acted in good faith, and the narrative presented to the public was incomplete and damaging.

Ekens Azubuike