An Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan and presided over by Justice Akintola on Friday heard how the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami denied knowledge of the invasion of the residence of Yoruba Nation agitator and activist, Sunday Adeyemo popularly called Sunday Igboho by the Department of State Security Services (DSS).
Indeed, the suit between, Sunday Adeyemo popularly called Sunday Igboho against the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Abubakar Malami and the DSS over the invasion of his Ibadan residence by DSS took another frightening dimension as the AGF denied having knowledge of the invasion, saying “I’m neither a security officer nor acted in position of court”.
Shockingly, Malami equally denied being a Fulani man contrary to the insinuations being created by Sunday Igboho.
According to him, the DSS acted alone without his knowledge in the invasion of Sunday Igboho’s residence where two of Igboho’s were killed, 12 others arrested and taken to Abuja as well denied having knowledge of blocking Sunday Igboho’s bank accounts.
The Yoruba Nation activist had on August 4 approached Oyo State High Court sitting in Ibadan, seeking an order of the court to restrain the Department of State Services (DSS) and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN) from arresting, intimidating, harassing and freezing of his bank accounts.
Not only that, Igboho is also demanding the same order for his aides and guests who were arrested and taken to Abuja by the DSS men that fateful day, adding that the Court should declare the invasion of his Ibadan residence by operatives of DSS on July 1 as illegal and infringement on his fundamental human rights.
But the AGF Malami in an affidavit deposed to on August 18, 2021 by one Thomas Etah, who is a civil servant of the federal Ministry of Justice Headquarters, and as a Litigation Officer in the Chambers of the Honourable Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Counsel to the 1st Respondent (Malami) and by virtue of which position he is conversant with the facts deposed herein.
Etah put it this way in the affidavit, “That I have the consent and authority of the 1st Respondent and that of Maimuna Lami Shiru (Mrs), Simon Enock, Abdullahi Abubakar and Elodimuo Ekene (Esq) the counsel in chambers assigned to conduct the defence on behalf of the 1st Respondent (Malami) to depose to this Counter-Affidavit.
“That in the Ibadan Judicial Division, holden at Ibadan, suit no: M/435/2021 between Chief Sunday Adeyemo a.k.a Sunday Igboho Oosa (Applicant) and the Attorney General of the Federation (1st Respondent), State Security Services (2nd Respondent), Director, State Security Services, Oyo State (3rd Respondent).
“First Respondent’s Counter-Affidavit in opposition to the Applicant’s originating motion on notice dated 22nd July, that I have seen and read the Applicant’s originating processes in this suit.
“That the facts deposed to herein are facts from my own personal knowledge and as well as facts from information supplied to me in the course of preparing the case, that the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 8(28), (29), (30) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode and states that contrary to the insinuation of the applicant to the effect, the 1st Respondent who is not a security officer as has been severally stated above, he did not participate in the commission of the acts being complained of or came back to Abuja and assumed the role of a judge or conducted any media trial.
“That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 8(31), (32) and (34) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application and states that the Applicant can only enjoy his freedom of expression, the right of assembly and to own property in his bid for self-determination of his Yoruba race within the ambit or limit of the law. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent did not approach any bank or financial institution in Nigeria or anywhere else in the world to block and/or place no debit on the account of the Applicant.
“The paragraph 8(33) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application represents the truth.
“That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 8(35), (36), (37) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode and states that the 1st Respondent did not place “fahtwa” on the Applicant or is chasing after the life of the Applicant to be killed on account of the Applicant’s perceived campaign for self determination or for any other reason at all.
“That the acts of the Applicant on account of the fact giving rise to the application as narrated by Samuel Ojebode are acts capable of disintegrating, splitting or dissolving the unit and corporate existence of Nigeria as a sovereign nation, being acts which hinges on criminality contrary to paragraph 8(38) and (39) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application.
“That the 1st Respondent admit paragraph 9 of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application only to the extent that the letter referred to was in receipt of the 1st Respondent but denies the pecuniary demand or content of the letter. The 1st Respondent did not commit or authorize any security agency to raid and destroy application to warrant the Jet Respondent to award the bogus compensation being sought to the Applicant.
“That the 1st Respondent denies paragraphs 5, 6 Samuel Ojebode in support of the application and further 1st Respondent does not know the Applicant or his WhatsApp video number or the incident that led to the WhatsApp video call and sundry issues in the averments in the paragraphs of the affidavit. The averments therein facts within the knowledge of the Deponent Applicant alone.
“That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph R(1), (2), (3), (4), (5),(7 (9) (10) (11), (12), (13) and (14) of the Affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application and states that the 1st Respondent is not security personnel or even ever ordered security officers of any agencies of the country or any part of the world at all to commit the act complained of in the averments in the paragraph under reference.
“That the 1st Respondent denies paragraph 8(15), (16), (17) 18), (19), (21) (23), (22), (23) and (24) of the affidavit of Samuel Ojebode in support of the application and further reiterate that the 1st Respondent is not a security officer and has not authorized any security officer to commit the acts being complained about in the said paragraphs under reference even as the Respondent is not a Fulani man contrary to the insinuations being created by the Deponent/Applicant.
“That it will be in the interest of justice to dismiss the suit or application in its entirety as it relates to the 1st Respondent.
“That I depose to this Counter-Affidavit in good faith believing the content to be true, correct and in accordance with the Oaths Law of Oyo State currently in force”.
But while the hearing was adjourned till August 30, Justice Akintola maintained that an order restraining the AGF, DSS or any other security agency from arresting or harassing Igboho still subsists till the next adjournment when the substantive case will be determined.
Uche Nwosu is a two time Shell Petroleum PLC award winner in the year 2000;
He won the Shell Award on Investigative Journalism and Environmental Cleanliness.