Justice Ayo Salami has described as an honour, his chairmanship of the presidential panel investigating the suspended chairman of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, Ibrahim Magu.
Salami spoke against the backdrop of the claim that Magu’s lawyers said he regretted his appointment as the chairman of the panel.
In a memo he issued, the retired Judge of the Court of Appeal said he had no regret heading the panel, and that the claim of regret was the imagination of the reporter and Magu’s lawyers quoted as sources of the report.
His words: “The reports were a figment of the wild imagination of the reporter, the two lawyers quoted as his sources and the medium that published the story.
“There was no time anything near the unthinkable scenario painted in the false story occurred in any meeting between myself and the lawyers to Magu or any other person, for that matter, since the Judicial Commission of Inquiry began its sittings.
“I have no cause to express any regret over my Chairmanship of the Commission, not to talk of betraying any form of emotion before anyone about it. I see my appointment to serve as the Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry as an honour and call to service, thus my decision to accept diligently and patriotically discharge this responsibility.
“I have never appointed any of the two lawyers or any other person(s) to speak on my behalf as I can express myself without recourse to the lawyers of the persons we are probing. As an eminent jurist, who retired as the President of the Court of Appeal, I have handled much more complex cases than the current one before the Commission. There is no doubt that the false reports were aimed at causing mischief and tarnishing my hard-earned reputation and integrity. I remain resolute and committed to the service of the nation and ready to champion the ideals of justice and fairness.
“I want to point out that such wild claims against me and the Commission are not strange to me, given the manner in which the lawyers to Magu have been carrying on in the conduct of their client’s case before the Commission. Planting such lies in the media about proceedings at the panel has been their pastime. They believe that it is by engaging in such media propaganda against the Commission that their client can be easily absolved of the various allegations that have been brought against him.”
