Former Director General of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Mohammed Dauda has reacted to a statement by the agency denying news reports of his reinstatement by the Court of Appeal in Abuja.
The Court of Appeal had on June 22 affirmed Dauda’s reinstatement by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria over the non-compliance with the service rules in his removal, and ordered the payment of his salaries and entitlements from March 2018 till date.
However, in a statement signed by its Head of Legal Department, A. Wakili, stated that Daudu was never a substantive DG of the agency but only acted in that capacity after the tenure of Ayo Oke and Arab Yadam.
The agency said the latest pronouncement of the appellate court bordered on procedure of his removal while the case on alleged “infractions and breaches” against him were still pending.
PHOTOS: Bauchi Gov leads prayer at Hajj
PHOTOS: Mercy Aigbe releases Hajj photos
In his response, Daudu said he did not influence the news reporting as he was outside the country when it first broke on June 22.
“Additionally, it is also absolutely untrue that there is an outstanding or remaining issue that is not adjudicated, as far as the Federal Court of Appeal is concerned. Unfortunately for them, it is the last court that will deal with this matter. They will not have the opportunity to manipulate and delay another case for another four years,” he said.
“I wish to take this opportunity to boldly state, for the avoidance of doubts that, I have never written or caused to be written, any petition, or press statement: and I will never do so: on any matter that may tend to compromise national security. I left the NIA as its Acting DG almost six years ago, and since then, I did not have any access to any document or correspondences of the NIA. In any case I have no reason, at all, to fight my country Nigeria or it’s people, just because I disagreed with what I see as a gross injustice, by the former administration. Governments come and go, but the country remains.
“The circumstances that trailed my appointment, and the stormy relationship I had with some very powerful people in government, over my refusal to avail public funds for their personal uses and my eventual removal and replacement with the secretary of the committee that sought to squander the funds, gave me the impression, that, my remaining as the DG of NIA was a threat to some selfish quests.”
