MTN Nigeria Communications Limited has finally laid to rest the controversy over the genuineness of the call logs rejected as credible evidence by the National Judicial Council’s (NJC’s) probe panel, by confirming that it released them to the police.
.jpg)
The call data on mobile numbers belonging to the suspended President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo Isa Salami and others, from the Police at Area G Command Headquarters, Ogba, Lagos, were rejected by the Justice Umaru Abdullahi probe panel due to what the panel described as “doubtful and unreliable source.”
The panel subsequently used the call data obtained by the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA), which covered only three months, to absolve Salami and other jurists, saying that the data were not comprehensive enough to indict them for unethical communications with parties in Osun and Ekiti governorship appeals.
The call data now being confirmed as authentic by the telecoms firm cover five months.
Oyinlola and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Osun and Ekiti state chapters, had gone to court, claiming that MTN deliberately released incomplete call data to NSA in order to protect Salami and certain politicians accused of unethical communications during the trial of appeals arising from the governorship elections in the two states.
They are asking for N150 billion damages and revocation of MTN’s operational licence.
In MTN’s statement of defence to the suit, the firm acknowledged that the call logs from the Nigeria Police Area G Command Headquarters, Ogba, which the petitioners presented to the panel as exhibit and rejected by the panel, were from it.
In paragraph 8, the firm claimed that “In response to paragraph 22-23 of the Statement of Claim, the 1st Defendant (MTN) stated that it always cooperates with security agencies and acceded to their legitimate requests while adhering to its rigid procedures to ensure its customer confidentiality regime is not compromised or prejudiced and also within the confines of its capacity and storage constraints. It was consequent upon this that the 1st Defendant, upon request for call data records from Nigeria Police Force Area G Command Headquarters Ogba, forwarded the CDRs to the Command.”
In MTN’s response, handled by the chambers of the former Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Abdullahi Ibrahim SAN, the telecoms giant insisted that it could only provide data covering three months.
“The 1st Defendant (MTN) duly honoured the request in line with its policies and capacity constraint, which limits the period within which CDRs can be stored on the 1st Defendant’s network to three months, by releasing the CDRs for the period December 2010 to February 2011 to the law enforcement agencies,” it stated.
It added that: “The 1st Defendant, as earlier stated, received a request from NJC vide a letter dated 14th April 2011 for the release of CDRs of some of the 1st Defendant’s subscriber numbers for the period September 2010 to January 2011. The 1st Defendant could not honour the request of the NJC, because of its obligation to respect the confidentiality of its subscribers, and, therefore, being only able to release such information to the actual subscriber of a specific mobile telephone line upon request, law enforcement agencies or upon a court order.”
However, in the response being filed by the plaintiffs to MTN’s defence, it is being contended that while the call data released to the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA) by MTN covered only three months, the data released to the Area G Command covered the required five months.
Oyinlola and PDP are contending that the call data of the months deliberately left out in what was given to the NSA would have made all the difference in reaching a different conclusion by the NJC panel.
According to the plaintiffs, “The 1st Defendant’s storage capacity is not limited to three months. The call data records the 1st defendant released to Area G Command, Ogba, covered the period between 1st September, 2010 and 31st January, 2011 (5 calendar months). We shall also be calling the Area Commander, Area F Command, Ikeja, Lagos, to tender the call data records of a certain Sunday Awobiye, which spanned a period of six (6) calendar months.
“These buttress the Plaintiff’s assertion of the 1st Defendant’s inconsistent, fraudulent and manipulative tendencies: The 1st call data record released to Adeolu Oyinlola by the 1st Defendant on the 4th of August, 2011 (already pleaded) covered only a period of one month, while the 2nd call data record released by the same 1st Defendant to the self-same Adeolu Oyinlola on March, 2012 covered three months. Very significantly, unlike the call data records the 1st Defendant released to the security agencies at the behest of the National Judicial Council, both of the call data records released to Adeolu Oyinlola had originating and terminating components. The 2nd call data record is hereby pleaded.”
“Defendants should declare when, in the history of Lagos State, a Tunde Folawiyo (in whose name telephone subscriber no. 08034240000 was registered) occupied the seat of governor. Plaintiffs shall, at the trial of the suit, cause the appearance of a witness, who regularly interacts with Bola Ahmed Tinubu on the aforementioned subscriber no. 08034240000, as well as subscriber no. 08062240104 (registered in the name of Gbadegesin Ademola).
“The honourable court is invested with the power to compel the 1st Defendant to avail it of the SIM registration details of the two suspicious numbers (especially now that subscribers are statutorily required to register their Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards, as it would assist the court to determine whether or not the 1st Defendant is in breach of section 14(?) of the Nigerian Communications Act.
“Considering the 1st Defendant’s extracted confession that it had earlier released some call data records to the Area Commander, Area G Command, Ogba, Lagos, is it not clear that the 1st Defendant acted against public interest by misleading the security agencies, and by extension, the National Judicial Council, through the release of incomplete and inadequate call data?
“Does the 1st Defendant consider it fair to have appeared for Justice Ayo Salami (the record of proceedings of the NJC Special Investigative Panel; as well as the fact that the MTN staff, that appeared before the Panel was led in his evidence-in-chief by Justice Salami’s legal representative attest to this) and attempt (unsuccessfully) to repudiate the call data records the 1st Defendant had earlier released to a competent government organ?
“Paragraph 8 of the 1st Defendant’s statement of defence, taken together with proof that the 1st Defendant’s storage capacity is more than three months, as well as the 1st Defendant’s failure/refusal/neglect to release the originating component of the call data records of the subscriber numbers requested by the National Judicial Council, prove beyond any doubt that the 1st Defendant deliberately frustrated the work of the NJC Panel; withheld the more important of the two components of call data records (terminating component); consciously avoided releasing the call data records of the period being investigated at the time, and perverted the course of justice. We shall, at the trial of this suit, require the Police, SSS and NSA to appear and tender the incomplete call data records supplied to them by the 1st Defendant.”
Click to signup for FREE news updates, latest information and hottest gists everyday
Advertise on NigerianEye.com to reach thousands of our daily users
Don't mind PDP rogues demanding for 150 billion Naira upon the billions of Naira they have stolen already. Their problem is not money but unceremoniously sent, flushed and swept out of Osun and Ekti prestigious government houses. Awon oloriburuku ole; dubious leaders. MTN Jo go on soun!!! Let them go back to the government house especially the Osun’s own if the spirit of Babaawo no go Pai the idiotic ex- prototype governor. Look? I dey vex for these beasts.
ReplyDelete