January 16, 2009
Dear Sowore,
I apologise for not reacting on time to your last letter. Expectedly, I always have a hectic daily schedule and I hardly find time to attend to other things which do not ordinarily fall within the purview of my daily routine as our correspondence these last few days have been. So, this will be my last correspondence on this matter as I intend to concentrate on other more pressing matters.
I do not intend to say much other than to sum up the white, black and gray areas that have emerged from our various correspondence. These areas are:
That I left Gani Fawehinmi Chambers in 1995 for my own private practice, and you said you met me when I was there. That should be between 1994 and 1995. So my claim that “we have known each other for nearly fifteen years now” is correct.
That you agreed you have been sending me mails and having telephone conversations with me these last few years, so we both agree to some cordial relationship.
You said, after much rigmarole, that you were eventually treated by one Dr. Allen Keller in New York for a year. So my account that you went for treatment is correct. But I will no longer insist on the medical records, because, really, that is beside the point.
I am happy you have changed your die-hard position on Nuhu Ribadu to “if today or tomorrow you find anything on Nuhu Ribadu that you think the public should know, do not hesitate to send it to us” and “no matter whose ox is gored, including Ribadu’s.” This is more in tune with the advice I gave to you not to be caught in an embarrassing position regarding Ribadu and my position that I cannot vouch for any public officer, whether it is Waziri, Ribadu or Aondoakaa.
On some of the accusations against Waziri and Aondoakaa, I want to say I respect your work as a journalist and the information you gather through painstaking investigation. One cannot wish away all the wonderful work you have done on account of some disagreement over issues concerning just one case, and I hope you think so of my work too! But unfortunately, I am a trained lawyer, not a journalist, even though I have been maintaining a column in a national paper for years now. Some of the evidence you gather, I cannot use as a lawyer, if not I run the risk of unprofessional conduct. Not that I run away from such charges, but there must be some modicum of acceptable evidence I can use to defend myself. So, one of our disagreement is the level of evidence you have supposedly gather with which I am expected to go to town. I disagree with most of them.
You made the point that I am in pole position to get further evidence myself from the authorities. But in your first letter, you did not require my co-operation to get documents and information for you. You only subtly accused me of maintaining a “stoic silence”. You did not admit that your evidence was insufficient. You appear to be sending me on wild goose chase over certain documents and facts. Now, your present position appears to be an admission that further evidence is required to prove some of your allegations which may be substantially true or substantially false.
But to highlight my point, I took up one of your allegations regarding withdrawal of monies from the EFCC account. My inquiries indicate that the dates and amounts you mentioned are not only false, but they are concocted beyond the acceptable limits of imagination. However, you may be innocent regarding this. Your source(s) may be one of those who thought Ribadu would be a life EFCC Chairman and may have fed you with total crap in a bid to pull down the present leadership of Waziri at all cost. Now, the embarrassing position you may find yourself over this now is the legal position that he who alleges must prove. You cannot insist I should make available to you the true figures and dates of my findings. It is you who alleged the original figures and dates that must provide evidence. This, you have failed to do.
I commend the work you listed that you did against some public officers in the past. I have also done countless in this regard. This is not a forum to blow our trumpets. The public is well aware of this. My accusation of non-action in this regard was not directed at you, but at your darling Ribadu who did nothing in the face of mass of evidence. Thankfully, you did not defend him again on this score.
The Doris Uboh’s case you mentioned is particularly interesting. It is because of the respect I always had for your work that is why I decided to take up that libel case free of charge for National Daily believing you must always have further evidence to back up your claims, since the story emanated from you. I will not make my professional opinion know here, but time will tell whether we are vindicated or not on this issue in which we find ourselves together.
Finally, I note that you remarked that “it is on the strength of the regard I have for you as an uncompromised activist … that I wrote you the letter that is now the subject of our present exchange. It was simply asking you to stay the course. Anyone can see that it was not an accusation of impropriety on your part.”
I want to assure you that nothing can derail my commitment to the Nigerian project. As I write you, I have petitions concerning nothing less than ten (10) SERVING GOVERNORS and public officers before EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies. It is in tune with the new philosophy of “see something, say something.” This was a campaign that the EFCC launched on December 10, 2008 in Abuja which was a huge success as it was hugely attended by people from all walks of life in Nigeria including the President, Five (5) Governors, LG Chairmen, Traditional Rulers, Diplomatic Community, Civil Society Groups etc. Curiously, you reported the next day that it was poorly attended when even the most critical papers in Nigeria reported it as lead stories the next day and agreed it was hugely attended. Your sources in Nigeria may mislead you sometimes because it so hard for you to be in far away America and be reporting events in Nigeria authoritatively.
Finally, prosecuting alleged corrupt persons on behalf of the EFCC is not tantamount to running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Why? Because, those renowned activists who were paid consultants to EFCC under Ribadu still stand tall in their believes and you have not accused them of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
I wish you well in the United States of America. I hope the cold is not too much out there?
I apologise for not reacting on time to your last letter. Expectedly, I always have a hectic daily schedule and I hardly find time to attend to other things which do not ordinarily fall within the purview of my daily routine as our correspondence these last few days have been. So, this will be my last correspondence on this matter as I intend to concentrate on other more pressing matters.
I do not intend to say much other than to sum up the white, black and gray areas that have emerged from our various correspondence. These areas are:
That I left Gani Fawehinmi Chambers in 1995 for my own private practice, and you said you met me when I was there. That should be between 1994 and 1995. So my claim that “we have known each other for nearly fifteen years now” is correct.
That you agreed you have been sending me mails and having telephone conversations with me these last few years, so we both agree to some cordial relationship.
You said, after much rigmarole, that you were eventually treated by one Dr. Allen Keller in New York for a year. So my account that you went for treatment is correct. But I will no longer insist on the medical records, because, really, that is beside the point.
I am happy you have changed your die-hard position on Nuhu Ribadu to “if today or tomorrow you find anything on Nuhu Ribadu that you think the public should know, do not hesitate to send it to us” and “no matter whose ox is gored, including Ribadu’s.” This is more in tune with the advice I gave to you not to be caught in an embarrassing position regarding Ribadu and my position that I cannot vouch for any public officer, whether it is Waziri, Ribadu or Aondoakaa.
On some of the accusations against Waziri and Aondoakaa, I want to say I respect your work as a journalist and the information you gather through painstaking investigation. One cannot wish away all the wonderful work you have done on account of some disagreement over issues concerning just one case, and I hope you think so of my work too! But unfortunately, I am a trained lawyer, not a journalist, even though I have been maintaining a column in a national paper for years now. Some of the evidence you gather, I cannot use as a lawyer, if not I run the risk of unprofessional conduct. Not that I run away from such charges, but there must be some modicum of acceptable evidence I can use to defend myself. So, one of our disagreement is the level of evidence you have supposedly gather with which I am expected to go to town. I disagree with most of them.
You made the point that I am in pole position to get further evidence myself from the authorities. But in your first letter, you did not require my co-operation to get documents and information for you. You only subtly accused me of maintaining a “stoic silence”. You did not admit that your evidence was insufficient. You appear to be sending me on wild goose chase over certain documents and facts. Now, your present position appears to be an admission that further evidence is required to prove some of your allegations which may be substantially true or substantially false.
But to highlight my point, I took up one of your allegations regarding withdrawal of monies from the EFCC account. My inquiries indicate that the dates and amounts you mentioned are not only false, but they are concocted beyond the acceptable limits of imagination. However, you may be innocent regarding this. Your source(s) may be one of those who thought Ribadu would be a life EFCC Chairman and may have fed you with total crap in a bid to pull down the present leadership of Waziri at all cost. Now, the embarrassing position you may find yourself over this now is the legal position that he who alleges must prove. You cannot insist I should make available to you the true figures and dates of my findings. It is you who alleged the original figures and dates that must provide evidence. This, you have failed to do.
I commend the work you listed that you did against some public officers in the past. I have also done countless in this regard. This is not a forum to blow our trumpets. The public is well aware of this. My accusation of non-action in this regard was not directed at you, but at your darling Ribadu who did nothing in the face of mass of evidence. Thankfully, you did not defend him again on this score.
The Doris Uboh’s case you mentioned is particularly interesting. It is because of the respect I always had for your work that is why I decided to take up that libel case free of charge for National Daily believing you must always have further evidence to back up your claims, since the story emanated from you. I will not make my professional opinion know here, but time will tell whether we are vindicated or not on this issue in which we find ourselves together.
Finally, I note that you remarked that “it is on the strength of the regard I have for you as an uncompromised activist … that I wrote you the letter that is now the subject of our present exchange. It was simply asking you to stay the course. Anyone can see that it was not an accusation of impropriety on your part.”
I want to assure you that nothing can derail my commitment to the Nigerian project. As I write you, I have petitions concerning nothing less than ten (10) SERVING GOVERNORS and public officers before EFCC and other anti-corruption agencies. It is in tune with the new philosophy of “see something, say something.” This was a campaign that the EFCC launched on December 10, 2008 in Abuja which was a huge success as it was hugely attended by people from all walks of life in Nigeria including the President, Five (5) Governors, LG Chairmen, Traditional Rulers, Diplomatic Community, Civil Society Groups etc. Curiously, you reported the next day that it was poorly attended when even the most critical papers in Nigeria reported it as lead stories the next day and agreed it was hugely attended. Your sources in Nigeria may mislead you sometimes because it so hard for you to be in far away America and be reporting events in Nigeria authoritatively.
Finally, prosecuting alleged corrupt persons on behalf of the EFCC is not tantamount to running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Why? Because, those renowned activists who were paid consultants to EFCC under Ribadu still stand tall in their believes and you have not accused them of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds.
I wish you well in the United States of America. I hope the cold is not too much out there?
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });