The National Intelligence Agency (NIA) has faulted a claim by former Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice Minister Kanu Agabi (SAN) that it was plotting to arrest its dismissed Acting Director General Mohammed Dauda.
The NIA, in a letter by its lawyer, Wale Adesokan (SAN), said the agency would not subscribe to arbitrariness, as alluded to by the former AGF in his letter, dated January 11, 2022.
Dauda was dismissed on March 6, 2018 as the acting Director General of the NIA over allegations of revealing classified security documents, among others.
He challenged and won before the National Industrial Court (NIC) in Abuja.
The NIC, in a judgment delivered on October 15, 2020 by Justice Olufunke Anuwe, said due process was not followed in Dauda’s dismissal.
The NIA subsequently appealed the judgment and an earlier ruling at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
But, in the January 11 letter to the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Justice Minister Abubakar Malami, the ex-AGF, who is Dauda’s lawyer, claimed that despite the pending appeals, the NIA was allegedly working “to compromise the personal liberty of our client on account of these appeals and or matters connected thereto”.
The agency, while responding to Agabi’s letter in the February 4, 2022 letter by Adesokan, argued, among others, that the ex-AGF painted a false impression about the actual state of affairs in his correspondence to the AGF.
“It is pertinent to note that the NIC judgment did not discharge your client from the misconduct that resulted in his dismissal. In fact, your client did not challenge or deny his misconduct.
“The NIC judgment, which is currently on appeal, was on the narrow issue of the competence of the Disciplinary Committee that dealt with your client’s misconduct.
“We state categorically that our client is a law-abiding institution which places high premium on the rule of law.
“It is uncharitable to suggest, allege or accuse our client of taking actions capable of subverting the course of justice or undermining the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“In clear and unequivocal terms, we state that it is incorrect that our client is making attempts aimed at compromising the personal liberty of your client ‘on account of the pending appeals or matters connected thereto’ as you have alleged in your letter under reference and for which you have failed to provide any concrete proof.
“Our client is very much aware and alive to its mandate, as provided for under the law establishing it. Our client, at all times, acts within the confines of its mandate in discharging its primary statutory responsibility in fidelity with the provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as well as the law creating it.
“It is particularly important to emphasise that if, at any time, any person or entity engages in any act constituting a threat to Nigeria’s national interest, our client will not shy away from its statutory responsibility. It is trite law that a statutory body is obliged to perform its statutory function at all times.
“Finally, it is unthinkable that our clients, who are the appellants in the pending appeals, will be the ones taking steps or doing any act calculated at undermining or compromising their own appeals.”
