- 13 5. The Defendant denies paragraphs xi, xiii, xiv, xvi and xix of the Plaintiff’s claim and therefore put the Plaintiff to the strictest proof of same. 6. The Defendant further states that it was the Plaintiff/Applicant who took the DSS to an area in Abacha Road of Karu L.G.A, Nasarawa State and located the house of SHOLA (the prime suspect) 7. The Defendant also denied paragraphs xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi and xxviii of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Statement of Facts and thus put the Plaintiff/Applicant to the strictest proof of same. 8. The Defendant in specific answer to paragraph xviii of the Plaintiff/Applicant’s claim states that it was he Applicant who unveiled the identity of one SHOLA to the DSS. 9. That the said SHOLA was still at large at the time of the arrest of the Plaintiff/Applicant, hence the risk of releasing the Applicant will enable the Plaintiff to connive with the SHOLA and thereby temper with the ongoing investigation in the matter. 10. The Defendant states that, at no time did it receive any money from the Plaintiff during or after his arrest and in the course of investigation of the alleged offense of impersonation. 11. The Defendant further states that, the Plaintiff/Applicant’s handset was not taken away by the DSS. 12. The Defendant further states that after thorough investigation of the Plaintiff and one NOEL, their statements were recorded and they were released pending further investigation of the matter. 13. The Defendant equally denied paragraphs xxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxiii, xxxix and xi of the Plaintiff’s claim and thus put the Plaintiff to the strictest proof of same. 14. In a specific answer to paragraph xlii and xlii, the defendant states that SHOLA is not an employee of the DSS and the Plaintiff’s arrest and detention were on reasonable suspicion that the Plaintiff is impersonating himself as one of the staff of DSS.