NIA Dismisses Kanu Agabi’s Claims of Plan To Arrest Its Sacked DG, Dauda

MICHAEL AKINOLA

The National Intelligence Agency, NIA, has dismissed the allegation by former Attorney General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi, SAN of plots by the security agency to arrest its erstwhile acting director-general, Ambassador Mohammed Dauda, and thus compromise the court case pending over his (Dauda) dismissal.

Mr. Wale Adesokan, SAN, acting on behalf of the NIA in a letter to Agabi, who is a lawyer to Ambassador Dauda, particularly expressed concern over a communication by him (Agabi) to the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami, SAN, in which it was imputed that the NIA was plotting, among others, to arrest Ambassador Dauda.

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, a decision 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, reversed Dauda’s dismissal, ordered his reinstatement and the payment of his salary and allowances.

The NIA subsequently appealed the judgment and an earlier ruling at the Court of Appeal in Abuja.

But, in the January 11 letter to Malami, the ex-AGF Agabi 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”.

While expressing concern that Agabi wrote Malami and copied others in the letter that was circulated in the media space in January, the NIA legal team expressed concern that they were not copied.

The NIA also strongly rebuffed insinuations that it was plotting to compromise the judgment, saying it was already on appeal and was looking expeditiously to the determination of its appeal against the judgment won by Ambassador Dauda.

The letter to Agabi, dated February 4, 2022, read thus:  ”We continue to act as solicitors to the National Intelligence Agency, NIA, the Appellant in the above-mentioned appeal in respect of which you authored a letter dated January 11, 2022, to persons not parties in the matter but did not consider it necessary to copy us.

”You also went as far as copying the letter to our client as though it has ceased to be the practice that once a counsel enters appearance for a party, it is to that counsel that communications to that party ought to be directed.

”We wish to respond to your letter under reference as follows:  ‘It is a rather surprising departure from the professional ethics of the Bar that in a matter or matters in which a Senior Advocate of Nigeria represented and still represents the Defendants/Appellants, a letter of that magnitude, which indubitably has put the conduct of a party to the proceedings in issue, is addressed and delivered to non-parties thereto. ”

”It is made worse by your failure to add us to the so many persons you copied. With the greatest respect to you, it is professionally discourteous and not in the best interest of the Bar for anyone to sidestep counsel on record in the matter and address directly a letter of complaint, as in this case, to third parties who are neither parties on record nor counsel thereof.

“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.”