Defamation: Omisore petitions EFCC, demands N500m damages

THE governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the 2014 governorship election in Osun State, Senator Iyiola Omisore, has petitioned the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), demanding a payment of N500 million as damages for what he described as an offensive, malicious and false publication.
This was just as the former deputy governor of Osun State demanded an immediate retraction of the publication, which declared him (Omisore) wanted in connection with an alleged case of  “receiving and misappropriating the sum of over N700 million between June and November 2014, from the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA).”
Omisore had, through his lawyers, Chief Chris Uche & Co, in a letter signed by its principal partner, Chief Chris Uche, addressed to and received by the EFCC, on Wednesday, accused the commission of defamation of his character, noting that it was untrue that the senator refused to make himself available to the EFCC as alleged.
The letter noted that if Omisore’s demands for a retraction and the payment of N500 million were not met within seven days of the receipt of the letter, his lawyers would institute a civil proceeding against the EFCC and its head of Media and Publicity for “aggravated damages, which shall certainly not be limited to N500 million.”
According to the letter, a copy of which was obtained by Nigerian Tribune, Omisore had approached the Federal High Court in Abuja, through Suit No FCT/HC/1456/2016, to seek its protection, having perceived that the EFCC’s invitation was “a deliberate ploy to unlawfully arrest and detain him.”
According to the letter, Omisore had been granted an interim order, which restrained the commission and its agents, officers and privies from unlawfully arresting, detaining or interfering with the fundamental rights of the former deputy governor without the due process of law, an order to which the letter  maintained that EFCC filed a counter-affidavit and preliminary objection, noting that the order was an impediment to the discharge of its statutory duty.

source: tribune

Comments