- 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.