Kamarudeen Ogundele and Oladimeji Ramon
The Governor of Ekiti State, Mr. Ayodele Fayose, has criticised human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), over the allegation by the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), linking the lawyer to a N1bn property on Gana Street, Maitama, Abuja.
Fayose said it was embarrassing, shameful, disgraceful that a man of Falana’s standing, reputed to be a human rights activist, friend of the masses, crusader of justice and defender of democracy, could be linked to such a scandal.
The embattled former chairman of the defunct Pension Reform Task Team, Abdulrasheed Maina, had accused Falana of buying the building which was one of the properties he helped to seize from suspected pension thieves and handed over to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission.
Malami had while testifying before the National Assembly last week, echoed the allegation, saying the property was sold to a ‘Lagos lawyer.’
Reacting in a statement on Monday, Fayose said it was sad and shameful that Falana could be “cited in such an odious, obscene, and offensive conduct.”
He said it was not surprising that Falana had taken it upon himself to always defend the EFCC, even when the anti-graft agency acted lawlessly, since the lawyer was allegedly benefitting from the EFCC.
Fayose said, “Linking Falana to illegally-acquired properties seized by the EFCC is bad enough but the facts provided by Malami make the case against Falana even worse. This must be the real reason why Falana always fall head over heels in defence of the EFCC and Magu, not minding the vicious violations of the constitutionally-guaranteed rights, freedoms, and liberties of citizens.
“What we have always suspected has now been confirmed publicly and by no less a person as the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice.
“Falana’s alleged unprincipled and disgusting defence of the EFCC and Magu’s penchant for disrespect of the rule of law and due process is for selfish reasons and personal gain.”
Fayose said the Federal Government must investigate Falana and not allow the matter be swept under the carpet.
But reacting to the call for his probe by Fayose, Falana, in a telephone interview with one of our correspondents, lambasted the governor for failing to pay attention to his earlier explanation on his connection with the property.
He challenged Fayose and the AGF to approach the court to seek a forfeiture order on the N1bn property if they were sure it was proceeds of crime.
Falana said, “I stand by my earlier defence that I never bought the house from the EFCC and I challenge him (Fayose) and the Attorney General to show the evidence. I challenge the garrulous Governor of Ekiti State to prove the monstrous allegation that I bought a house from the EFCC.
He added, “Since Mr. Ayo Fayose has not paid attention to the fact and circumstances of the case, I advise him to study my explanation that the house in question is a subject matter of a pending suit before the Federal High Court and that the house has been forfeited to AMCON in the interim.
“The EFCC is not a party to the case. So, if Mr. Ayo Fayose wants to join the suit, he’s free, he is at liberty to approach the Federal High Court holding at Abuja to prove his allegation. But his is a case of Ajegbodo to nweni kun ’ra. (The one recklessly eating fresh yam will always want to co-opt others into the deal.) .
“As of today, he has already forfeited six houses to the government of Nigeria. So, if he is sure that that this is proceeds of crime, he should apply to have it forfeited. He should contact the Attorney General, Mr. Malami, to apply to have the house forfeited, if they are sure that the house is proceeds of crime.”
Falana said the governor had been looking for a way to attack him “since I pressured the state to charge Mr. Fayose and his armed goons with the cold-blooded murder of Dr. Ayo Daramola and Tunde Omojola.” (Punch)
From: FRED ITUA, Abuja
The Senate has mandated President Muhammadu Buhari to act swiftly and punish the government officials involved in the reinstatement of the former chairman of Presidential Task Team on Pension Reforms, Abdulrasheed Maina.
The Senate mentioned the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami and the Minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Dambazau, demanding for their immediate removal.
Senators who took their turns to condemn the recall of Maina, said President Buhari’s government has been hijacked by powerful forces who do not want the All Progressives Congress (APC) led government to succeed. (The Sun)
By Ike A. Offor
A memo detailing how Minister of Interior, Abdulraham Danbazau and AGF Abubakar Malami reinstated Abdulrasheed Maina has emerged revealing every details of their actions in the controversy.
There has been denials and confusion on how the man alleged to be involved in pension fund fraud and wanted by EFCC before he absconded could be reinstated into the service and promoted, without prior knowledge of his crime.
The details here reveals how such clandestine reinstatement was carried out by the minister of Interior, Abdulrahman Dambazau and the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami in such secretive job offer without regard for the law.
Nigerians have been outraged by the acitivities surrounding this scandal and many have questioned the seriousness of Buhari-led administration in the fight against corruption.
Though in a kneejerk reaction, President Buhari yesterday fired Abdulrasheed Maina and ordered for investigation into who were behind such act.
But many folks still think that the President has not done enough by mere sacking of Alhaji Maina but should get him arrested and prosectued for the fraud he is accused of.
The Republican News reported this morning in its Facebook page, that mobile police officers attached to EFCC stormed the estimated $2m mansion belonging to Abdulrasheed Maina but he is nowhere to be found.
The memo clearly stated that Alhaji Maina was dismissed from the service on 21st February 2013, this being the period the past aminstration of Goodluck Jonathan dsicovered that he was involved in a fraud and was dismissed and asked EFCC to investigate him.
Alhaji Maina, then absconded and vanished into thin air until he returned and was resinstated into the same service where he was dismissed from.
The Republican News
The Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Abukabar Malami (SAN) has been quoted to have said that President Muhammadu Buhari has directed all relevant agencies to compile documents on names of all looters with a view to promptly enforcing the judgment of a Federal High Court in Lagos ordering the government to release to Nigerians information about the names of high ranking public officials from whom public funds were recovered.
The court also ordered the government to tell Nigerians the circumstances under which funds were recovered, as well as the exact amount of funds recovered from each public official.
Mr Malami reportedly made the disclosure, on Wednesday, during a meeting at his office in Abuja with a delegation from Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP). This development was disclosed, on Thursday, in a statement by SERAP executive director Adetokunbo Mumuni.
Mumuni said, “We had a very productive meeting with Mr Malami, discussing among other critical issues the need for the government to obey the judgment delivered in July by Hon Justice Hadiza Rabiu Shagari following a Freedom of Information suit number: FHC/CS/964/2016 brought by SERAP.”
According to Mumuni, “Mr Malami informed us that President Buhari has directed the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and other relevant agencies involved in the recovery of looted funds to promptly put the documents together with a view to fully and promptly enforcing the judgment by Justice Shagari.”
“We appreciate the opportunity to meet with the Attorney General of the Federation and look forward to working with him as the government strives to enforce this very important judgment. We hope that the implementation of the judgment will now happen sooner rather than later. We believe that effectively implementing the judgment will be a victory for the rule of law, show the way forward in the fight against corruption and impunity of perpetrators in the country, as well as demonstrate Buhari’s oft-repeated commitment to tackling the problem of grand corruption,” Mumuni added.
It would be recalled that the SERAP suit followed disclosure last year by the Federal Government of funds recovered from some high-ranking public officials and private individuals.
In her judgment delivered on 5th July 2017 Justice Shagari agreed with SERAP that “the Federal Government has legally binding obligations to tell Nigerians the names of all suspected looters of the public treasury past and present.” Joined as Defendants in the suit are the Minister of Information Alhaji Lai Muhammed and the Federal Ministry of Information and Culture.
The same day that the judgment was delivered Mr Malami told reporters in Abuja that government was in agreement with the ruling and would carry out the order as long as it does not amount to subjudice.
Justice Shagari also granted the following reliefs:
A DECLARATION that by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 (a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2011, the Defendants are under a binding legal obligation to provide the Plaintiff with up to date information relating to the following:
To widely disseminate including on a dedicated website information about the names of high ranking public officials from whom public funds were recovered since May 2015
The circumstances under which stolen public funds were returned
It would be recalled that the Ministry of Information last year published details of the recoveries, which showed that the Nigerian government successfully retrieved total cash amount N78,325,354,631.82, $185,119,584.61, £3,508,355.46 and €11, 250 between May 29, 2015 and May 25, 2016. Also released were recoveries under interim forfeiture, which were a combination of cash and assets, during the same period: N126,563,481,095.43, $9,090,243,920.15, £2,484,447.55 and €303,399.17. Anticipated repatriation from foreign countries totalled: $321,316,726.1, £6,900,000 and €11,826.11. The ministry also announced that 239 non-cash recoveries were made during the one-year period. The non-cash recoveries are – farmlands, plots of land, uncompleted buildings, completed buildings, vehicles and maritime vessels.
Subsequently, SERAP issued an FOI request and gave the Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Muhammed 14 days to disclose the names of all suspected looters.
The request reads in part: “While we believe that suspects generally are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, SERAP opposes blanket non-disclosure of names of high-ranking public officials from whom some of the funds were recovered.”
“SERAP insists that the public interest to know is greater than any other legitimate interest that the government might wish to protect. The Nigerian government has an obligation to balance whether the risk of harm to the legitimate aim (that is secrecy of ongoing corruption investigation and presumption of innocence) from disclosure of the names of public officials is greater than the public interest in accessing the information.”
“SERAP believes that the recoveries, specifically from high-ranking public officials (and not private individuals), are matters of public interest. Publishing the names of those public officials will provide insights relevant to the public debate on the ongoing efforts to prevent and combat a culture of grand corruption in the country.”
“The gravity of the crime of grand corruption, the devastating effects on the socially and economically vulnerable sectors of the population, and the fact that recovery of huge funds from high-ranking public officials entrusted with the public treasury raise a prima-facie case and therefore amount to exceptional circumstances that justify naming those high-ranking officials in the public interest.”
“Publishing the names of public officials involved could go a long way in preventing senior public officials from turning the public treasury into a private cashbox. The public interest in publishing the names of the high-ranking government officials from whom funds were received outweighs any considerations to withhold the information, as there would be no prejudice against those whose names are published as long as the information is appropriately framed and truthful.”
“While the government in some limited cases can legitimately place restrictions on the public’s right to access certain information, attempts of the Nigerian authorities to justify the total closure of information related to the names of public officials from whom funds were recovered on the basis of “ongoing criminal investigation” and “presumption of innocence goes far beyond the limitations allowed under international law, and would promote secret recoveries.”
“The information being requested is not related to detailed investigatory activities of anticorruption agencies regarding the recoveries so far made. Similarly, the mere fact that the information being requested is related to ongoing investigation does not necessarily mean that the information could not be disclosed. In addition, governmental agency has the obligation to prove that the disclosure of the names of public officials would disrupt, impede, or otherwise harm the ongoing or pending investigations or presumption of innocence.” (The Sun)
By Chukwudi Nweje
Ikechukwu Ikeji is a lawyer, based in Lagos. In this interview, he faults the proscription of IPOB by a federal High Court and the proposed law on hate speech among other issues.
The Federal High Court in Abuja recently declared the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) a terrorist organisation. This was after Justice Binta Nyako also of a Federal High Court Abuja dismissed the terrorism charge against IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu. Is this not a conflict in judgement by two courts of concurrent jurisdiction?
It is a contraction. The only grounds on which IPOB could have been declared a terrorist organisation is if the federal government presented fresh facts that were not available the first time Nnamdi Kanu was arraigned. That is facts that happened after the first time Kanu was arraigned and later acquitted by Justice Binta Nyako. That is the only grounds on which the federal government can present new evidence and now say that IPOB has degenerated into a terrorist group and then based on that evidence the federal government can now present its petition before the court. Perhaps it was based on those new facts that Justice Abdul Adamu Kafarati granted the application. But if there are no new facts to show that IPOB has engaged in terrorist activities, then it is an aberration to rather than go on appeal, approach a court of concurrent jurisdiction to declare IPOB a terrorist organisation.
What do you suggest then?
We can actually approach it from two fronts, one that there are fresh facts and two there are no fresh facts. If there are fresh facts, IPOB could be entitled to approach Justice Kafarati, who made the order to present a counter affidavit to show that the pieces of evidence presented by the Attorney General of the Federation do not support the declaration that IPOB is a terrorist organisation. Where the honourable Justice does not agree with IPOB, it has another option to go to the Court of Appeal after the Court of Appeal; it can go to the Supreme Court.
Now if the federal government is saying that there are fresh facts, what IPOB can do is to show that those fresh facts do not amount to terrorism. If the judge disagrees with them, they also have the opportunity of going on appeal, because they have the right to fair hearing. The right to fair hearing is an inalienable right of everybody under the constitution.
Can the security agencies, based on intelligence reports declare an organisation a terrorist group?
The security agencies have absolutely no power to declare IPOB or any other group a terrorist organisation. The only way you can classify an organisation a terrorist group is if they have violent inclination or activity aimed at taking some kind of advantage. For example, if you have political views and use violence to push others towards your views, that is terrorism. You can see this in Section 1 of the Terrorism Prevention Act 2011 as amended in 2013 that is where you can see the list of activities that constitute terrorism.
Boko Haram initially started out building Islamic schools and doing charity works. It turned a terrorist group after the founder; Mohammed Yusuf was killed in 2009. Do you also nurse the fear that IPOB may turn the same way?
I have the concern, maybe not fear. I don’t know any member of IPOB, but I know that when a group is so determined even if it means using some violence, they may go underground and use the opportunity of the underground to carry out heinous activities. So it is more dangerous having them underground than discussing with them. You cannot defeat the argument that discussion and dialogue is the only way forward.
President Muhammadu Buhari was at the United Nations General Assembly to agitate for the restructuring of the Security Council. How do you reconcile that with his stance on the restructuring of Nigeria?
He is speaking from both sides of his mouth, he is being hypocritical and I will cite instances. He is speaking on the self-determination rights of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and Palestine, but in his own country, he does not believe in the self-determination rights of the people. He is not saying the truth, he is only playing politics and negative diplomacy, and it is unacceptable.
How do we dowse the tension?
The way to douse the tension is to call everybody to dialogue. Agitation is a human right recognised by Article 20 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights, which has been domesticated in Nigerian law by the African Charter Ratification Act 1993 and given judicial recognition by the Fundamental Rights Enforcement Procedure Rule 2009. We must accept the fact that a group of people have the right to agitate and the language they use to agitate should not be a problem. People are deceived by the language of Nnamdi Kanu and they use it to blackmail the real purpose of his agitation. In any case, hate speech is not an offence; it is only an offence if it leads to defamation of character. The law of sedition is no longer part of Nigerian Criminal Justice System. So we should not allow the content of Nnamdi Kanu’s speech to overwhelm the self-determination content.
Vice President Yemi Osinbajo may disagree with you on hate speech. He has said the federal government will make a law so that hate speech becomes an act of terror. What is your take on that?
He said the federal government will soon criminalise hate speech. He didn’t cite any law because there is no such law. The only law that relates to what somebody says is the Criminal Defamation Law, which has to do with what you say that destroys the character of another person and it has nothing to do with hate speech. Hate speech is wrong morally and socially but legally, there is no provision against it. Even in the United States, the Supreme Court has severally held that there is no way you can legislate against hate speech. So the Vice President never quoted any law, he only said the federal government will criminalise hate speech. But as soon as that law comes out is as soon as it will be shut down because it will infringe on the fundamental right to free speech. (The Sun)
The Indigenous People of Biafra on Friday asked the Federal High Court in Abuja to set aside the orders proscribing it and designating it as a terrorist group.
The Acting Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice Abdu Kafarati, had on Wednesday, issued the proscription order upon an ex parte application by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami.
Punch reports that in a motion filed by IPOB’s lawyer, Mr Ifeanyi Ejiofor, before the same judge on Friday, the group contended that the proscription order was unconstitutional.
The motion was anchored on 13 grounds, first of which was that the proscription order was made without jurisdiction “as the order was granted against an entity unknown to law”.
The grounds of the application read in part, “That the Exparte order made on the 20th day of September 2017, by this Honourable Court was made without jurisdiction, as the order was granted against an entity unknown to law.
“That there are a clear suppression and misrepresentation of facts in the Attorney General Affidavit evidence, pursuance to which the Order was granted.
“That the Order is unconstitutional, as it was made in clear violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of the Indigenous People of Biafra to self-determination; Article 20(1) of the Africa Charter on Human & Peoples Rights, now domesticated into our Law under (Ratification and Enforcement Act) (Cap 10) Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 1990; Right to fair hearing, Right to freedom of expression, and the press and Rights to Peaceful Assembly and Association; clearly provided for under Sections 36, 39 and 40 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria as (Amended) 2011.
“That a declaratory order cannot be made pursuant to an Exparte Application, without hearing from the party against whom the order was made.
“The Indigenous People of Biafra who are majorly of Igbo extraction, have no history of violence in the exercise of their right to self-determination. (Punch)
From: Chidi Nnadi, Enugu
Apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, has warned courts in the country not to allow themselves to be used to undermine the democratic process by granting frivolous orders against the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB).
Ohanaeze, in a statement signed by its President-General, Chief Nnia Nwodo, on Monday evening, said it gathered from a credible intelligence report that Minister of Justice and Attorney General of the Federation, Alhaji Abubakar Malami, had secretly approached courts to obtain an order to designate IPOB a terrorist group.
Nwodo said that such move was not only illegal but also aimed at pushing further the harassment and intimidation of Igbo youths who have been pursuing their constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human rights in the land.
He also disclosed that Ohanaeze had despatched letters to the courts to be wary of such spurious moves as they were capable of aggravating the already frayed nerves, as well as capable of disrupting the genuine moves made by Ohanaeze and critical Igbo leaders in bringing peace and tranquillity to the country. (The Sun)
The legal counsel of IPOB via the instruction by Mazi Nnamdi Kanu has written to Attorney General of Federation with regards to a purported declaration by the Nigerian Armed Forces, which declared its organisation as a terrorist group in Nigeria.
In the letter, IPOB’s legal counsel drew the attention of the AGF on the criteria that qualifies a group as a terrorist organisation as stipulated by the constitution of the federation.
Here is the letter:
Abubakar Malami, SAN
Attorney-General of the Federation
RE: Purported Declaration Of IPOB As A Terrorist Organization By The Nigerian Armed Forces
We write on the instructions of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu (hereafter: our Client). Our Client is the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and we have his instruction to petition your office with respect to the above-referenced matter. It is also his instruction that this Petition be published widely.
Having fully studied the referenced ‘Declaration’ and the pertinent Laws of Federation of Nigeria, it is our considered position that the action of the Nigerian Armed forces is ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal and negatory. Our position is predicated on the following Points and Authorities:
- Terrorism (Prevention) Act:
The entire body of Nigerian law on terrorism is codified and known as Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011 (as amended in 2013). The provisions that dealt specifically with the procedure for declaring an entity a terrorist and proscribed organization are found at Section 2 of the Act, which states that:
“(1). Where two or more persons associate for the purpose of or where an organization engages in— (a) Participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism;
(b) promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or
(c) setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism, the judge in Chambers may on an application made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police on the approval of the President; declare any entity to be a proscribed organization and the notice should be published in official gazette.
(2) An order made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be published in the official gazette, in two National newspapers and at such other places as the judge in Chambers may determine”.
As is clear from above, the statutory provisions are unambiguous and explicit. Let it also be clear that the foregoing provisions constitute the sole and entire statutory path through which an entity, such as IPOB, can legally be declared a terrorist or proscribed organization under the extant statute.
And to be sure, the procedure for making such ‘Declaration’ strictly and exclusively requires judicial intervention, not the martial orders of the Nigerian Armed Forces, that also does not possess such powers under the Armed Forces Act. Consequently, it is our position that this ‘Declaration’ cannot stand in law.
- Judicial Pronouncements:
On March 1, 2017 a Federal High Court in Abuja, per Justice Binta Nyako, struck out the charges of “terrorism, management of unlawful organization and intention to manufacture Improvised Explosive Devices planned to be used against Nigerian security agents”, which were instituted by your office against our Client in his extant capacity as the leader of Indigenous People of Biafra.
The judge ruled that ‘the proof of evidence failed to show that IPOB was indeed an unlawful organization’; and that ‘the prosecution failed to show that IPOB is a proscribed organization or that it was not registered either in Nigeria or United Kingdom’.
To be sure, and as regards ‘terrorism’ which is at issue here, the court had struck out the charge that our Client or any of the co-accused (all members of IPOB) committed – as framed by your office – “terrorism contrary to Section 2(1)(a) of Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 as amended in 2013.”
A plain reading of the foregoing ruling will show that not only did the court find that IPOB is not a terrorist/proscribed organization, it also disposed of any allegation that our Client or any of the alleged ‘confederates’ committed acts amounting to terrorism. It is noteworthy, therefore, that the acts alleged as grounds for making the said ‘Declaration’ are virtually the same with, or similar to the acts previously held by the court as NOT constituting terrorism, as defined in Section 1 of the Terrorism (Prevention) Act.
On the basis of the Points and Authorities enunciated above, we most respectfully request:
- That, pursuant to the powers and procedures of your office, you take prompt measures to issue an Advisory Opinion invalidating the said Declaration.
That, upon the issuance of the said Advisory Opinion, you take prompt measures to cause publication of same in the official Gazette of the Government of the Federation and in at least 2 Nigerian newspapers of national circulation.
While we anticipate an expeditious disposition of this Petition by your office, please be assured of our highest esteem for your person and the office of the Attorney-General of the Federation.
Respectfully submitted by:
ADULBERT LEGAL SERVICES
Solicitors to Mazi Nnamdi Kanu
1. The Presidency
2. Chief of Defence Staff
3. Chief of Army Staff
4. Chief of Air Staff
5. Directorate of State Services
6. Inspector-General of Police
Eniola Akinkuotu, Abuja
The Minister of Information and Culture, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, says President Muhammadu Buhari is investigating the feud between the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami (SAN), and the acting Chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, Mr Ibrahim Magu.
Mohammed said this during a breakfast show on Channels Television titled, ‘Sunrise Daily’ on Tuesday.
When asked to explain what caused the feud, Mohammed said, “That is what the investigation will bring out. The President is aware and is investigating it. He is the employer of both of them.”
When asked if the feud between Malami and Magu would not affect the war against corruption, the minister added, “The fact that the AGF and the EFCC chairman do not see eye to eye on the methods or the approach does not mean that both of them do not believe in the ultimate which is that corruption must be addressed.
“If they disagree on approach, then the President will look into the matter and make his pronouncement. He will ask why the AGF is taking such a position and why the EFCC chairman is taking another position.
“This, to me, is a purely administrative matter and if it is not, Mr President will take appropriate action.”
The AGF and the EFCC boss have been involved in a feud which became public knowledge about a month ago.
Malami had specifically blamed Magu for causing the suspension of Nigeria from the Egmont Group, an international anti-corruption body with over 135 member countries.
The AGF had also accused the EFCC boss of breaching Section 10 (1) of the EFCC Act which states that the EFCC must send complex cases to the AGF for better cooperation and prosecution.
Mohammed admitted that there was a disagreement between the EFCC boss and the AGF but added that it was not as bad as it was being portrayed.
He said both parties had the best interest of Nigeria at heart but only differed on approach and methodology.
Asked if the feud was not a signal that the anti-corruption war lacked coordination, Mohammed said, “There are divergent views between the AGF and the EFCC chairman and the appropriate authorities will look into it.”
The minister also defended the Federal Government’s delay in obeying the order of a Federal High Court which ordered on July 5, 2017, that the Federal Government should release information on people who had returned stolen funds and how much was collected from them.
The minister said publishing the list could be inimical to the war against corruption and so certain things must be considered before the order was obeyed.
“There will be other considerations that the government will examine before it is made public. It depends on the outcome of the consideration before it is published. It also depends on if the release will not tamper with the fight against corruption.
“It is not tantamount to contempt of court process,” Mohammed added. (Punchng.com)