I read with utter amusement the piece entitled ‘Oyerinde’s murder: The Police, DSS tango’ written by one Ben Okezie and published in the Opinion columns of Daily Sun of Friday, April 11, 2014 and Daily Newswatch of April 18, 2014. Ben Okezie who claims to be ‘a security analyst’ said he 'writes from Abuja'.
I read with utter amusement the piece entitled ‘Oyerinde’s murder: The Police, DSS tango’ written by one Ben Okezie and published in the Opinion columns of Daily Sun of Friday, April 11, 2014 and Daily Newswatch of April 18, 2014. Ben Okezie who claims to be ‘a security analyst’ said he 'writes from Abuja'.
I felt a sense of pity for Ben Okezie, who appears to have abandoned his noble journalism profession and found a new means of livelihood in ‘hatchet job’ and propaganda, a self-destructive career path.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
For the second time, I’ve seen Okezie venture blindly into the treacherous mission of distorting facts - a missiont capable of bringing him- and the institution he attempts to launder - to ridicule.
I have known Ben Okezie since his days as a crime reporter up to his days in Sun as editor and up to the point that he suddenly began to parade himself as a media and (sometimes also as a) crime consultant.
I am aware that he works directly now with the Force Headquarters in Abuja as a 'Consultant'.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });
Ever since his transition, he has done more of hatchet job than professional journalism which is hallmarked by objectivity, truth, impartiality and integrity.
He once wrote gibberish in defense of Mr. Mike Okiro and in reaction to a publication of NOPRIN's report to the Senate in which NOPRIN outlined four main grounds of objection to Okiro’s nomination by President Jonathan as chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC).
We found Mr. Okezie's attack on NOPRIN in his publication as devoid of logic and too petty to be responded to- and we never bothered to dignify him with any response. Now, he is at it again, this time trying to manipulate facts in a clear case of shoddy police investigation of the murder of Comrade Olaitan Oyerinde. Okezie's effort to obfuscate facts is self-serving and motivated by lucre.
Okezie has singled himself out as a hired goon and writer in defence of public officials or organisations whose reputation have come under public scrutiny or whose performance in the discharge of their duties have left much to be desired and therefore need some 'PR' to manage the public backlash over their incompetence. But unfortunately, Ben Okezie is a cheap impostor who is not well equipped and suited for such a role that calls forth some modicum of intelligence.
If my suspicion is wrong that Okezie is a lucre-driven hatchet man, then I wonder how a journalist worth that name could begin to write and pontificate on an issue he knows nothing or very little about!
With that misleading piece, Okezie ended up making himself look as much pathetic as the case he was pretending to opinionate about: the vexed issue of police shoddy investigation of the murder of Comrade Olaitan Oyerinde.
I am constrained, therefore, to set the record straight on this issue.
Let me provide a background to the issue in contention here using Ben Okezie's own opening words in his piece under critique. I quote him:
‘Comrade Olaitan Oyerinde died in the hands of evil men May 5th, 2012 in his house in Edo, state. His death sparked concern across the country as he is the principal secretary to the governor of Edo State, Adams Oshiomole. The Department of State Security (DSS) and the Nigeria Police arrested suspects. However, the outcome of their investigations sparked controversy as the two security agencies emerged with two varying reports and names of arrested suspects which further heightens the anger of the populace with the governor spitting fire, calling for the retirement of the deputy Inspector general of police who led the police investigating team from Abuja.’
It suffices that the foregoing opening paragraphs by Ben Okezie provide a background to the issue in contention.
But the rest of Okezie's effort in his piece was a hardly veiled, amateurish attempt at image-cleansing. His attempt was to give the investigating police officers in the Oyerinde's murder, a clean bill of health. It was a futile effort and attempt to salvage an image already dented by incompetence and negligence. The inconsistencies in the police investigation report discredited the report.
I doubt if Ben Okezie has ever cited the full report of police investigation on this case, a report that was further discredited by the parallel report of the DSS on the same case.
The DSS report was diametrically opposite and roundly contradicted the police report. The DSS arrested and paraded a set of suspects completely different from the set paraded by the police. Yet, Mr. Okezie agrees that both the police and the DSS are commendable at once for parading different suspects and reaching different conclusions on the same case, thereby complicating the case and making justice almost unattainable.
Mr. Okezie displayed pathetic ignorance of the issues surrounding the murder of Olaitan and the police bungling of investigation into the murder. It made no impression on Mr. Okezie that police investigation culminated in the frame up, arrest and unlawful detention of David Ugolor and refusal by the police to obey two court orders for his release .
The only other plausible explanation for Mr. Okezie's position- assuming that he has the correct information and knows the truth but decided to simply earn some blood-stained income- is that he is acting a script. And it is unethical to try to earn a living by mischief and crook.
In his piece under critique, Okezie started blundering from his narrative of proceedings during the public hearing organised by the House of Representatives committee on Public Petitions. The public hearing was sequel to a petition by Edo conference of NGos alleging 'complicity and shoddiness in police investigations' into Olaitan's murder.
Okezie chose to emphasise the point that the House ‘committee’s final report affirmed that “the investigating agencies, the Police and the Department of State security, we’re methodological, painstaking and professional, using available investigative techniques, within their capabilities including forensic analysis to arrive at their respective positions. The report further noted that “glaringly enough both agencies reports by all intent and purposes were untainted, original, forthright and professionally delivered.” It further added that, “The two agencies were also prompt, diligent, forthright and uncompromising in their investigation, factors which resulted in the arrest and detention of the alleged robbers and receivers of Oyerinde’s stolen items.” According to the report, “There were other findings by the police, which though not subject of this report, reinforced the uncompromising posture, seriousness, transparency and diligence upon which the police conducted its investigation'.
Then, he submitted: ‘So, it is evidently clear that the alleged complicity and shoddiness of the police report could not be substantiated the committee said.’
Okezie further stated: ‘The police within available oral and documentary evidence before the committee conducted their investigation professionally, as there is no covert evidence to show police complicity on the matter.”
Now, if the foregoing excerpts selectively taken by Mr. Okezie from the report of the HOR Committee on Public Petitions are all that he based his conclusions and submissions on, then there is no doubt that he is either jaundiced or this is another hatchet job. In any case, it is the product of an unskilled, uninformed and incapable propagandist. Otherwise, how would Okezie close his eyes to the glaring inconsistencies in the same police report that forms the basis for his glowing encomiums for the police!
Why is Ben Okezie not aware, or simply failed to also point out, that '...Two of the suspects paraded by the police were found to have earlier been arrested by the police for illegal possession of firearms on April 24, 2012, and were in custody of the Edo State Police on May 4, 2012, the night Mr. Oyerinde was killed...'
Why is Okezie also not aware that '...A letter from the office of the DPP (Department for Public Prosecution) Edo State Ministry of Justice underlined the inconsistencies of the findings claimed by the police in the murder probe, discrepancies that triggered allegations that police investigators have worked more to shield, than expose the killers...'
Didn't Okezie read that the DPP, citing previous records, queried at a point in the letter: “Could a weapon recovered and in possession of the police be confirmed by the suspects to have been used for the commission of the offence?”
Isn't it easy to understand that it was for these shocking realities that Mr. Oshiomole was the most vociferous in the claim of police attempt to shield the real murderers. In a statement in August 2012, Oshiomole said:
“In my view, the police investigating team under the deputy commissioner of police is purely engaged in acts of mischief in a futile attempt to shield the real murderers”.
He added: “It is now up to the police to prove otherwise, and they are duty-bound to do so’’.
The inconsistencies in the police report and the contradictions in the separate investigation reports by the police and the Department of State Security (DSS) lent credence to these allegations.
It was expected that the Attorney General of the Federation, Mr. Adoke SAN would study both reports of the Police and DSS on the murder of Comrade Oyerinde, resolve the conflicts therein and give appropriate legal advice that will lead to the apprehension and prosecution of the actual perpetrators of the tragic murder.
It is even more disturbing that despite these inconsistencies and contradictions in the reports of the two security agencies, the House of Representatives Committee on Public Petitions (which Mr. Okezie quoted copiously) praised both the police and the DSS at the same time 'for job well done'.
However, Ben Okezie later exposed his real intent and purpose in the piece when he tried to also highlight and justify one of the recommendations by the House Committee that the police should reinvestigate David Ugolor.
Okezie wrote: The report said, “without prejudice to the case in the court, the arrest of Rev David Ugolor in the course of police investigation was within the competence of the police in its effort to unravel the case being investigated. There is nothing unprofessional on the police action. The law allows the police to interrogate anybody it suspects in the course of investigation.”
But Okezie did not also add that the police must also always show reasonable cause (or what in the American criminal justice system is called 'probable cause') before they can arrest anyone for any crime.
Okezie also said nothing about the fact that up to date, the police investigation did not show any reasonable or justifiable cause for the arrest of David Ugolor.
Okezie said nothing of the fact that one of the suspects arrested by the police and whom the police claimed to have named 'one David' as the sponsor of the murder- based on which David Ugolor was arrested, later confessed that he never knew David Ugolor and that he was shot on the foot during 'interrogation' by the police to implicate David Ugolor. This same suspect was also reported as having revealed that the police handed him David Ugolor's photo two weeks before David Ugolor was arrested to enable him identify Ugolor during the identification parade organised by the police investigators.
Ben Okezie also saw nothing wrong with Police contemptuously disobeying two Court Orders and in spite of overwhelming public opinion calling on the police to obey the rule of law and release David Ugolor from unlawful detention.
It is quite revealing and laughable that Okezie only saw reason in the recommendation by the House committee that Ugolor shoud be 'reinvestigated' by the police- meaning, the police should rearrest a man who has already been discharged and acquitted and granted compensation for his unlawful detention by the police.
The appeal by the police against the court ruling ordering them to pay damages to David Ugolor for the violation of his fundamental rights is still pending.
But unknown to Okezie- and perhaps those at whose behest he is acting, that particular HOR committee recommendation -that the police should reinvestigate David Ugolor, as well as another recommendation commending both the police and the DSS- were rejected and therefore deleted from the final report by the whole House in session during its consideration and amendment of the committee report which Okezie is still referring to and propagating.
It is not impossible that Okezie may have been engaged to fly a kite and perhaps, prepare the grounds for the rearrest of Ugolor. But this will not only be unnecessary; it will also be in contempt of court.
Okezie also attempted to portray the SSS as having meddled into police functions when he further wrote: The committee sited the position of the Attorney General of the federation who noted in a memo to the committee that having examined the state security service Act, Cap.N.74 LFN 2004 and the powers of the Nigeria police as provided by section 4 of the Police as Act Cap 19 LFN, 2004,”the power to investigate crimes of the nature under consideration (murder) resides with the Nigeria police while the power to gather intelligence lies with the State security Service (SSS).
Then he hit at his main point: 'Interestingly the Committee was able to notice the gladiator style of the SSS when instead of keeping to its constitutional mandate to collate and make available such intelligence report to the police kept their findings from the police, an attitude which the Committee rebuked'.
Okezie continued: “However, the Committee is disturbed on the seeming air of distrust, complete absolute absence of inter-agency rivalry and the consequent avoidable controversy that has marred a supposedly praise worthy effort by the agencies.'
'As a result, the critical issue of harmonization of the different outcome of the two agencies’ investigation, which would have led to the identification and arrest of the actual suspects was lacking, hence the controversy. This was most noticeable when the DSS handed over suspects to the Police, without accompanying case file,”
Clearly, Mr. Okezie is misinformed and misguided and his piece misleading. The SSS Director made it clear during the HOR public hearing that the SSS handed over the suspects it arrested along with the report of its investigation to the police. He emphasized during the public hearing that there was no way the SSS could hand over suspects to the police without handing over the case file.
Okezie went on to pontificate on other points which I do not wish to comment further on. His main motive was to manipulate public opinion on the conduct and performance of the police investigators and perhaps, make a case for the police to 'reinvestigate' David Ugolor, a recommendation that the HOR already rejected and deleted.
The piece by Ben Okezie has exposed what is a case either of Ben Okezie’s ignorance or mischief- if not both. It underscores the need for any organisation seeking image-making or good public relations not to engage a character who is himself a bad public advertisement and would therefore, only worsen the case of such organisation.
I must point out, in conclusion, that the level of incompetence exhibited by the police investigators into the Olaitan murder, which is characteristic of previous cases, must not be rationalised or covered up. We must be concerned about the lack of operational capability by the police and the consequent increasing violent crimes and police inability to provide answers to them. We must rather admit this gap and advocate for improved funding, training, equipment and morale for the police, rather than trying to massaging their ego when they fail in their duty.
Okechukwu Nwanguma writes from Lagos 08064974531
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of SaharaReporters
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });