The Department of State Services (DSS) has maintained its stance that Godwin Emefiele financed terrorism and committed money laundering offenses.
Daily Report Nigeria reports that the secret police maintains it did not disobey court orders in the arrest detention of the former Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) Governor, Godwin Emefiele a second time.
The DSS also insists that the embattled Emefiele not only financed terrorism and laundered money, but committed other crimes against the Nigerian State.
In a statement on Tuesday by its Spokesperson, Peter Afunanya, the agency further condemned criticism of its handling of the Emefiele’s investigation.
ATTENTION: Click “HERE” to join our WhatsApp group and receive News updates directly on your WhatsApp!
“Whether on Emefiele, Bawa or Kanu, the agency has obeyed judicial orders and handled cases procedurally, and in accordance with the rule of law. Critics are encouraged to be a bit more discerning and up their research capabilities,” Afunanya said.
READ ALSO: Court Stops DSS From Extending Emefiele’s Detention
“Doing so will reveal that the agency obeys orders. The Court of Appeal judgment on Kanu is recommended for detailed study.
“Maybe, we can decipher the difference between discharged and acquitted and what the use of either or both mean in the final order of a judge. The DSS is an ardent respecter of the law. Anyone may argue this but it is true.
“It is in this regard that it has applied for either a stay or notice of appeal on some of the matters. One who does not obey the laws will not resort to legal procedures like the DSS has done.
“The agency applied for an ex parte order at the FCT High Court, presided by Justice Edward Okpe (and not Justice Mu’azu as erroneously and massively reported in the media) to detain Emefiele for 14 days. Against the established rules regarding ex parte applications, a lawyer suddenly appeared in the court for Emefiele.
“While the judge did not out rightly reject the DSS’ request, he struck out the motion upon its withdrawal by the agency’s counsel. But this is not without his guidance. Earlier, the judge had drawn the attention of the counsels to Section 293 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), which also recognises the Magistrate Court as a competent court that can first be approached for an order for custody of a suspect under investigation.
I”n other words, the agency, having taken the hint of the court, took the right steps. What transpired at the court was, thereafter, variously misrepresented by some mischief makers.
“Part of the disinformation is to the effect that the court ‘struck out the application and said it was an abuse of judicial process.’ That was not what the court said. What Justice Okpe said was ‘the applicant, having withdrawn the application, same is hereby struck out.’ That was all.
“The court records are there. But purveyors of fake news distorted the message to suit their intent; just to make the agency look bad – a sort of giving the dog a bad name in order to hang it.”
