Why I Approved DSS Raids, Arrest of Judges – AGF

Wed, Nov 30, 2016
By publisher
2 MIN READ

BREAKING NEWS, Judiciary

– 

ABUBAKAR Malami, attorney general of the Federation and minister of Justice, said on Tuesday, November 29, explained why he sanctioned the raid on the homes of some judges by the Department of State Security, DSS, in different parts of the country.

Malami, who spoke during an investigative hearing by the Garba Datti-led House of Representatives Ad-hoc Committee investigating cases of invasion of property and arrest of persons for reasons outside the general duties insisted that the DSS acted within the law in its operations.

The AGF said that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission had no exclusive rights to any investigations, including matters relating solely to financial crimes and stressed that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion of the affected judges.

He also said his office received full briefing and gave backing to the arrest of some judges by the DSS over allegations of corruption which led to the October raids on the judges’ homes.

Malami told lawmakers that investigation of the judges stemmed from multiple petitions sent to his office and other security agencies of which the National Judicial Council, NJC, was duly informed but failed to act on them.

He also disclosed that some of the arrested judges had no asset declaration record with the Code of Conduct Bureau, CCB, as mandated by law.

Malami said that agencies have an obligation to carry out the functions which they were empowered by law to do.

He argued: “When we are talking about constitutional obligations, it goes without saying that all state instruments, Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) are under obligation, inclusive of the Legislature and the Judiciary to take steps that will abolish corrupt all practices.

“It was in respect of that obligation that whatever issue arise from the search and arrest of the judicial officers were carried out.

“The State was in receipt of multiple petition of corrupt practices by the judicial officers  and there was further apprehension that,  if immediate steps were  not taken, the possibility of dissipating existing evidence that were believed to have being kept within their respective domain will eventually be tampered with.

“Arising from the responsibility created and established by Section 15 of the Constitution, the State had to act.”

—  Nov 30, 2016 @ 14:00 GMT

|

Tags: