Sambo Dasuki denies implicating anyone in arms procurement probe

PREMIUM TIMES—– A former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki, has denied ever making statement implicating anyone or group in the allegation of dubious $2billion arms purchase deal brought against him by the federal government.
There were reports Thursday that Mr. Dasuki, while being quizzed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, named some prominent Nigerians among those who got huge funds from his office while he was NSA.

But Mr. Dasuki, who spoke through his lawyer, Ahmed Raji, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, said he never made any implicating statement or named anyone to EFCC and wondered ‎where the authors got their information from.
“I was with Dasuki yesterday and wish to make categorical statement that my client never made any statement of such nature or named anybody or group in any statement,” PRNigeria quoted Mr. Raji as saying.
“Quote me anywhere, Dasuki has not done anything like that. It is absolutely untrue. It is the figment of the imagination of the authors aimed at creating falsehood for reasons best known to them and Nigerians shou‎ld disregard them.
“They are just out to scandalise the man, bring his image and character into disrepute so that his friends and well wishers can run away from him. They want him deserted and that will fail.”
Meanwhile the case between the Federal Government and Mr. Dasuki over allegations of money laundering and illegal arms possession came up Thursday at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
During Thursday’s proceedings, the federal government appointed a private legal practitioner, Oladipupo Okpeseyitan, SAN, to continue the prosecution of Mr. Dasuki.
Mr. Okpeseyitan, after announcing his appearance, told the trial judge, Justice Adeniyi Ademola, that he had filed a motion for stay of execution of the ruling of the court which granted Mr. Dasuki permission to seek medical treatment.
He applied to the court to put the ruling on hold pending the outcome of the appeal in the matter.
Mr. Raji, in his reply, told the court that he had just been served the motion in court, adding that he needed time to respond.
The case was then fixed for December 8 for hearing.