News

THE DSS OPERATES WITHIN ITS MANDATE

Published

3 years ago

June 20, 2023

By Peter Afunanya

Recently, about five major newspapers called out the DSS for bashing of sorts. The papers, which used their platforms to express varied views about the modus operandi of the Service include Vanguard, Daily Trust, The Sun, Tribune and Punch. While Vanguard’s piece on 2nd June 2023 was Dousing the DSS/EFCC Feud, Daily Trust, on 6th June 2023, published an editorial titled The DSS Must Conduct Its Duties as a Secret Service. The Sun, on 7th June, published The Needless DSS/EFCC Fracas while Tribune on 8th June 2023 wrote on The EFCC/DSS Confrontation. Similarly, on 14th June 2023, Punch featured DSS, Others Need Radical Reforms. It did not seem that the editorials which sought the reforms of the DSS or to criticise it for its public statements or actions on various subject matters of national security concern were, by any means, an accident a coincidence. It looked every inch planted or organised. It is a hatchet job or so it seemed. The judgement that the Service is excessively public or ubiquitous missed the point. The papers manifested predictable bias and patterns.

Relatedly, some respected legal personalities namely, Olisa Agbakoba SAN, Mike Ozekhome SAN and Femi Falana SAN opined that the Service operates outside its mandate especially with regards to the investigation of Godwin Emefiele. The fact that this matter has become sub-judice constrains the Service from making further statements about it. The celebration of the news of a court order to allow his Lawyers and family access to him is quite unnecessary. He was never denied access. Ever since he was taken into custody, his family has continually accessed him. Same with medical officials. The impression that the Service is going to act on the prompting of the Court is not correct. This is by the way.

Back to the subject under discourse. While it may be fair to admit that the news media and aforementioned personalities are entitled to their opinions, measured ignorance predominantly played out in their arguments. First, they failed to recognise that security threats are evolving and so do the approaches to managing them. Instructively, the security landscape in Nigeria, like many other countries, has become increasingly complex and dynamic. The periodic issuance of press statements to educate or carry citizens and residents along has undoubtedly become part of strategies to manage national security challenges. Extensive research would have revealed to the critics that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other world intelligence Services deploy similar tactics including occasional statements and advisories. The CIA includes demographic information on its website to provide the public with valuable insights and data about various populations so to enhance understanding of different regions and communities. Does it mean CIA is operating outside its mandate? Or will that be accepted because it’s CIA, a foreign body?

The need for the agencies to be responsive, transparent and apprise taxpayers has become the global norm in national security and intelligence management. It is called security/intelligence accountability. The tenets of security and intelligence governance expect that agencies remain transparent, accountable and compliant to democracy. World over, Intelligence Services operate in ways and means not too discernable to the uninitiate. But the institutionalisation of democracy as preferred political culture has nonetheless forced such agencies to communicate often with the Public. You can see why the public statements can never be out of place. Without public consciousness and support, countering threats may remain a herculean task for security agencies. Democratic subordination and legislative oversight are basic principles which make it an obligation for these agencies to operate openly even when some of their activities are secret. Ask the USA, UK, France, Canada and other advanced democracies. This level of openness does not vitiate the expected secrecy or in any way compromise their operations.

Regarding the matter concerning the DSS and EFCC, both agencies have refuted claims of a rivalry. It is important to note that comparing the 30th May, 2023 incident at 15 Awolowo Road, Lagos to the barricade of National Assembly in 2018 is inaccurate and unjust due to the substantial differences in the nature and context of the two events. While it is essential to emphasize inter-agency relations and cooperation, it would be unfair to generalise and imply that the Service is in rivalry and power struggle with the Commission. Each agency operates within its distinct mandate and context.

Meanwhile, the editorials accurately alluded to the constitutionality of the DSS as an intelligence organisation in detecting, preventing and neutralising threats against Nigeria. They commended the Service for its commitment to the security of the country as well as the many feats it had accomplished in the course of discharging its duties. Thank you indeed. It has to be understood that the Service is not only an intelligence organisation. It is also a law enforcement agency. It is a security and policy advisory organ. Its establishment law expects it to prevent. To prevent unarguably means to enforce. Should the Service seek media endorsement or permission before deploying operatives and equipment to conduct its job? Should it rather play to the gallery? Characteristic of intelligence operating systems, DSS’ activities may never be completely explained or understood particularly to those who do not need to know.

Even though some of its high officials and operations are known and their veils of secrecy uncovered, there are thousand undercover personnel and actions that have no business going public. It is expected to remain so. With its broad mandate and legal authority to investigate crimes of national security significance, the DSS is well within its rights to initiate an inquiry into any relevant matter. The DSS is primarily charged to detect and prevent crimes and threats against the internal security of Nigeria. More profoundly, it is to undertake such other responsibility as maybe assigned to it by the President and Commander-in-Chief. Appreciating this role of the DSS is instructive for some sections of the media, lawyers and other interested parties. The Service operates on the basis of rule of law. Its operations are rule governed. As required, it obtains arrest and detention warrants when and if needed. For the fact that such instruments are not advertised does not suggest otherwise. Critics should get conversant with the law and rules of engagement and desist from misinforming, misleading or inciting the public. Those seeking to weaken the Service through premeditated reforms may be on a wild goose chase. Consistent attack on it based on ignorance, unrealised interests and emotional assessments and judgements does the country no good. The DSS has stood so firmly for Nigeria. It will continue to.

Considering the warped mentality that has triggered these writeups, it will, no doubt, be unsurprising to witness an upsurge in malicious articles, criticisms and baseless attacks in the public space following the investigations of Messrs Godwin Emefiele and Abdulrasheed Bawa among other flimsy matters. Certain groups and people are bound to come up with frivolous allegations against the Service and its leadership. These entities may also exploit unpatriotic members of the Service to spread falsehoods, propaganda and hate in order to project the Organisation in a bad light. Given their reach and war chest to mobilise forces against Government and its key officials, the adversaries may intend to cause distractions to the on-going investigations as directed by the C-in-C. However, the Service will not depose its professionalism for cheap backlash nor discharge its duty with prejudice or fear.

For those who canvass the opinion that the DSS has no business in investigating the matters referred to it are obviously not taking seriously the omnibus powers of the President, as enshrined in the enabling Acts of the SSS and the NSA. As argued by a onetime Director of the DSS, Fubara Duke, “When a law confers on the President power to delegate ANY assignments he deems fit for a particular Agency to perform, I wonder how it falls outside the purview of (ANY) the stipulations of the President’s powers and by extension why the DSS is being faulted for carrying out the President’s directive”. Continuing, he added: “I have heard arguments of cases being thrown out by the courts over questionable prosecutorial powers of the DSS regarding some categories of cases including criminal cases. Without prejudice to the wisdom of the court on such judgements, they should not override the lawful investigative authority of the DSS. Should there be need for prosecution in due course, these determinations would be appropriately evaluated and where/if necessary, appropriate prosecutorial agencies which may include the Attorney General’s Office or other sister agencies may be deployed to prosecute. It is not the first time this has happened”.

Let it be clear, however, that the DSS will remain unshaken and professional in carrying out its duties. It recommits to diligently operate, as always, within the confines of the law and to uphold the fundamental rights of all Nigerians. The media must, as the fifth estate of the realm, remain balanced, accurate, impartial and accountable. To sustain a deliberate misguidance of the public with any form of misconceptions is detrimental to nationhood. Therefore, to deepen the expected contributions, seeking veracity is not only ethical but obligatory. That should not be asking for too much.

By Dr. Peter Afunanya, fsi
Public Relations Officer
Department of State Services

News

ORTOM DISMISSES FALSE REPORT ON ALLEGED PLOT TO REPLACE AONDOAKAA

Published

2 hours ago

August 7, 2026

Our Reporter

The attention of the immediate past Governor of Benue State and Leader of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, in the state, Chief Samuel Ortom has been drawn to a mischievous report being circulated on social media alleging that he and other leaders of the party held a secret meeting with some chieftains of the All Progressives Congress, APC, with the aim of replacing the 2027 PDP governorship candidate, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, with the Executive Secretary of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, Dr. Pius Akutah.

The report is false, misleading and a deliberate distortion of the facts.

For the avoidance of doubt, Chief Ortom, alongside the Senate Minority Leader, Senator Patrick Abba Moro, and the PDP governorship candidate, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, met with some prominent Benue sons, including Chief Simon Shango, Professor Iyorwuese Hagher, Dr. Pius Akutah, Engr. Emmanuel Ameh and Dr. Matthias Byuan.

The meeting was part of ongoing consultations and engagements aimed at building a broad strategic alliance of Benue stakeholders for the greater good of the state. At no time during the meeting was the replacement of Chief Aondoakaa as the PDP governorship candidate discussed, contemplated or placed on the agenda.

It is therefore mischievous for anyone to take a legitimate meeting of Benue leaders and manufacture an entirely different motive for it. Political consultations and engagements across party lines are neither strange nor secret conspiracies, particularly when they are driven by the larger interest of the people.

Chief Ortom wishes to state unequivocally that Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, remains the duly nominated governorship candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party in Benue State for the 2027 election. The former Attorney General and Minister of Justice enjoys the confidence and support of the leadership and members of the party.

Chief Ortom equally reaffirms his conviction that Aondoakaa possesses the experience, competence, capacity and understanding of the challenges confronting Benue State to provide purposeful leadership and reposition the state on the path of security, economic recovery and sustainable development.

Those behind the false narrative are advised to desist forthwith from spreading fabricated stories capable of creating unnecessary confusion among members and supporters of the PDP and the general public. Political journalism and commentary must be anchored on facts, not conjecture, deliberate falsehood or the attribution of imaginary motives to legitimate engagements.

Chief Ortom urges PDP members, teeming supporters of Chief Aondoakaa and the people of Benue State to disregard the baseless report and remain focused. No amount of misinformation or political mischief will distract the PDP leadership from its commitment to building a formidable coalition of Benue people towards offering the state a credible alternative in 2027.

Signed:

Zege Paul Terhide
Media Assistant to Chief Samuel Ortom
August 7, 2026

News

Osun Account Freeze: Gov Adeleke, demands N2bn damages

Published

17 hours ago

August 6, 2026

Our Reporter

The Governor of Osun State, Ademola Adeleke, on Thursday slammed a N2 billion suit on the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over what he termed the unlawful freezing of the state’s Federal Statutory Allocation Account.

The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1762/2026, also has the Attorney General of Osun State, as well as the Accountant General of the state, listed as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, respectively.

Cited as 1st to 3rd defendants in the Originating Summons entered before the Federal High Court in Abuja by a team of lawyers led by Prof. M. T. Adekilekun, SAN, are the EFCC, its Chairman, and First Bank Nigeria Limited.

Specifically, the plaintiffs posed several legal questions for the court to determine, among which are:

“Whether, having regard to the express provisions of Sections 1, 6, 36, 44 and 162 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without regard to due process of law?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 1st and 2nd Defendants possess the lawful authority to freeze, restrict, block, place a ‘post no debit’ order on, or otherwise interfere with the Osun State Government Federal Statutory Allocation Account, Number 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, without first obtaining and serving a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the directive of the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant ordering the freezing or restriction of the Osun State Statutory Account No. 2017170947, maintained with the 3rd Defendant, vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), without any prior or concurrent court order sought, obtained and served on the 3rd Defendant, does not constitute an egregious act of executive lawlessness, an unlawful resort to self-help, a flagrant abuse of statutory powers, an unlawful suppression of the constitutional powers and functions of the Plaintiffs, a threat to the constitutional and corporate existence of Osun State, a brazen and unlawful denial of the democratic rights and dividends of the people of Osun State, and a direct violation of the fundamental constitutional principles of due process, the rule of law, and the financial autonomy of a federating unit?

“Whether, having regard to the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, the 3rd Defendant, being the banker to the Government of Osun State in respect of the said statutory account, can lawfully freeze or continue to freeze, restrict, block, or deny the Government of Osun State unrestricted access to the said account merely upon an administrative directive, letter, request, instruction, or communication from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants in the manner done herein, in the absence of a valid, subsisting, and specific order of a court of competent jurisdiction?

“Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, this Honourable Court ought not to forthwith set aside the directive given by the 1st Defendant to the 3rd Defendant in a letter dated 5th August 2026 ordering the freezing, restriction, blocking, or placing of a post-no-debit instruction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations of the Government to the people of Osun State?”

As well as: “Whether, having regard to the effect of the combined express provisions of Section 7(6) of the Money Laundering (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and Section 34 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission Establishment Act, 2004, and in the absence of an order of a court of competent jurisdiction, the 3rd Defendant did not breach the duty of care owed to the Osun State Government when, on the purported directive of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, it placed a restriction on the Osun State Statutory Account with the 3rd Defendant, given that such action was allegedly taken without a court order, in violation of due process, and in a manner demonstrably capable of crippling the constitutional and statutory obligations and rights of the Government and people of Osun State.”

Upon determination of the questions, the plaintiffs, among other things, urged the court to declare the actions the defendants took with respect to the Osun State account as “unlawful, unconstitutional, ultra vires their powers, null and void, and of no effect whatsoever.”

They further sought:
“An order setting aside, vacating, and nullifying the freezing, restriction, blocking, post-no-debit instruction, or any other restraint placed on the Osun State Statutory Account maintained with the 3rd Defendant vide its letter with Reference No. CR:3000/EFCC/ABJ/HQ/PFS/TA/OSUN/VOL.17/666 dated 5th August 2026 and authored by ACE I Adenike S. Babalola (for: Director, Investigation), for being unlawful, unconstitutional, and without legal basis.
“An order mandating the 3rd Defendant to forthwith unfreeze, unblock, and remove all restrictions, and to allow the Government of Osun State immediate and unrestricted access to and operation of the said Osun State Statutory Account.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, whether by themselves, their officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on their behalf, from freezing, restricting, blocking, placing a post-no-debit instruction on, or otherwise interfering with the Osun State Statutory Account or any other account of the Government of Osun State without following due process of the law.

“An order of perpetual injunction restraining the 3rd Defendant, whether by itself, its officers, agents, servants, privies, or any person acting on its behalf, from acting on any directive, letter, instruction, or request from the 1st and/or 2nd Defendants to freeze, restrict, block, or deny access to the Osun State Statutory Account, except in the manner stipulated by law.”

They also prayed the court to award N2 billion against the defendants to serve as “exemplary and aggravated damages for the unlawful interference with public funds,” as well as an order directing the defendants to pay the costs of the litigation.

Meanwhile, no date has been fixed for the suit, which was filed shortly after President Bola Tinubu directed the EFCC to immediately approach the court to unfreeze the Osun State Federal Statutory Allocation Account.

News

Tinubu orders EFCC to unfreeze Osun govt account, says timing ‘deeply embarrassed’ him

Published

21 hours ago

August 6, 2026

Our Reporter

President Bola Tinubu has directed the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) to immediately vacate the court order freezing the Osun State Government’s bank account.

The directive followed widespread criticism that greeted the anti-graft agency’s decision to freeze the account domiciled in First Bank about 10 days before the state’s governorship election.

In a statement titled, “President Tinubu Directs EFCC to Vacate the Court Order Freezing Osun Government Account,” issued by his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, the President said he was “deeply embarrassed” by the timing of the EFCC’s action.

Tinubu clarified that his concern was not with the EFCC’s statutory powers or its decision to obtain a court order, but with the timing of the move, which he said had created negative public perception.

He noted that actions taken by federal institutions are often attributed to the President, even when he has no prior knowledge of them.

“Since assuming office, I have consistently maintained that anti-corruption and law enforcement agencies must be allowed to discharge their statutory responsibilities independently, professionally, without fear or favour, or political interference,” the statement quoted the President as saying.

Tinubu said he had deliberately refrained from interfering in the operational activities of the EFCC and other investigative agencies because he believes that strong democratic institutions operating within the law are essential to good governance and the rule of law.

He added that state institutions should be allowed to perform their statutory functions without requiring presidential approval for every action.

“Accordingly, I have directed the EFCC to immediately proceed to the court to vacate the order and discontinue whatever action it has instituted against the Osun State Government in this regard,” the statement said.

The EFCC had obtained a court order freezing the Osun State Government’s account as part of an ongoing investigation. However, the action drew criticism from opposition parties and other stakeholders, who alleged that the move could affect the credibility of the forthcoming governorship election in the state.

The anti-graft agency has yet to publicly respond to the President’s directive.