The Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami has denied any involvement in the raid by security operatives on the Abuja residence of Justice Mary Odili.
The AGF in a statement on Saturday through his media aide, Umar Gwandu said his principal or the Federal Ministry of Justice has no role in the raid which took place on Friday.
He described the process that culminated in the issuance of a search warrant used during the raid as a ‘nasty court process’ emphasizing that no way could he have played any role in such a sham.
JomogNews Nigeria recalls that a joint team of security operatives invaded the Maitama, Abuja residence of Justice Mary Odili.
The operatives were said to have gone to the judge’s home to execute a search warrant as part of investigations into her husband, Peter Odili, who is a former Governor of Rivers State.
The search warrant used for the operation was reportedly issued based on an affidavit by a whistleblower.
Malami however in the statement released after the raid said that contrary to suggestions that he ordered the raid, as the Chief Law Officer of Nigeria, there is no way he would descend so low to get involved in such a sham operation.
He clarified further that there is nothing known as “Joint Panel Recovery Under the Ministry of Justice” in the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and by extension the entire Federal Ministry of Justice.”
The statement said: “It is important to set the record straight that as the Chief Law Officer of the Federation, Malami will not stoop too low to be associated with an apparent in-elegant and nasty court process on the strength of which the purported search warrant was procured.”
“The media reports on the issue depict to untidy process that could never emanate from the Office of the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.”
“The general public needs to know that there was nothing called “Joint Panel Recovery Under the Ministry of Justice” in the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, and by extension the entire Federal Ministry of Justice.”
“What we have is Inter-Ministerial Committee on Assets Recovery” the mandate of which does not include stings operations. Numerous incongruities in the documents being circulated in relation to the saga reveal traces of criminal actions which particular regards to:
1. The name as contained on the purported letter headed paper “Ghost’s Account For Local Whistle Blowers & Assets Tax Recovery Panel”,
2. The ambiguous reference to “Ministry of Justice” without clarifying as to whether it is Federal or State Ministry and of which State,
3. The claimed office address which as revealed by the letter headed paper is not the address of the Federal Ministry of Justice
4. Email address used on the letter
“All these deductions would have assisted a discerning mind to arrive at a reasonable conclusion of criminal undertones associated with the court process on the basis of which the purported search warrant was procured.”
“The Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice has since reached out to the relevant authorities for an intensified wider investigation on the matter for necessary actions leading to the prosecution of anyone involved in the matter in view of the fact that the only names on record from the process filed in court are a purported police officer who claimed to be “O/C Assets Recovery Team” and one Aliyu Umar a deponent in the affidavit.”
“The claim of the chief magistrate as reported by a section of the media to the effect that he was being misled by office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice into the issuance of the search warrant is equally forwarded to the relevant investigation agencies to ascertain veracity or otherwise of the purported association of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice and which officer if any in the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice is associated with such claimed misrepresentation.”
