By DAPO FALADE
A former presidential adviser and coordinator of the Amnesty Programme, Brigadier General Paul Boroh (rtd), has denied a newspaper report that the sum of $9million was found in his house.
He also said there was no time he was involved in any deal involving the sum of N40 million (or any other sum) reportedly found in a separate bank account and neither was he involved in an alleged replacement of actual names with over 4,000 ghost names, as contained in the report, published by the Sun Newspapers on Saturday, 5 September, 2020.
Boroh, in a statement by his lawyer, R. E. Wanogho Esq, dated 8 September, 2020, described the report as falsehood and demanded for a retraction and an apology, failure of which he threatened to sue the newspaper for alleged defamation.
The Sun Newspapers was reported to have published thus: “The presidential panel, which investigated alleged corruption in the amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants, has turned in a damning report…
“In fact, in one instance, the report noted that Nine Million Dollars ($9million) cash was recovered from the residence of one of the former coordinator of PAP, General Boroh.
“Apart from the $9million cash recovered from the residence of Genearl Boroh, the panel report also notes that: The sum of N645 million was frozen from the account of Mr Erepade Fidelis Beggi, who was an aide to General Boroh.
“However, Brigadier General Boroh and Mr Beggi claimed that the money was meant to pay members of the Niger Delta Avengers. MrBeggi was said to have returned N40million found in a separate bank account.
“Brigadier General Boroh and his aides allegedly replaced the names of actual beneficiaries of the Presidential Amnesty Programme with over 4000 ghost names through which he collected N260 million monthly since 2015.
“The Director of Finance and Accounts (DFA) of the Amnesty Office, Mr Aliyu Kareem, frequently paid millions of naira into the accounts of selected contractors from which the contractors collect between 10 and 20 per cent commission before returning the remaining to accounts operated by Amnesty Programme’s DFA and Brig Gen Paul Boroh.”
Wanogho, in the statement, however carpeted the newspaper for its alleged lopsidedness in its report, claiming that it was published without hearing from his client, in the spirit and practice of true journalism.
He said no attempt or effort whatsoever was made by the publication or (any of its reporters) to contact Boroh for his side of the story and apparently also no efforts were made to establish the veracity of the story before putting it out for public consumption.
“We are attorneys to Brigadier General Paul Boroh, (rtd). Our client (hereinafter) on whose instruction and behalf we write to register our client’s strong reservations and protest against your publication on the front page and at page 27 of the above dated Saturday Sun newspaper that was also widely republished and circulated by you on the internet, especially as it concerns our client.
“Please be informed that none of the above three major weighty allegation contained in your said publication is true. For the avoidance of doubt, at no time was the sum of $9million cash (or any other sum for that matter) found in the residence of our client, as falsely reported by you.
“At no time did any such event regarding a claim by our client that the sum of N40million (or any other sum for that matter) found in a separate bank account was returned as falsely reported by you and at no time was our client involved in replacing actual names with over 4,000 (or any other sum for that matter) ghost names, again as falsely reported by you in your said publication.
“The lopsided nature of your above referenced publication is exacerbated by your own admission that you did not (in the spirit and practice of true journalism) hear our client’s own side of the story before rushing to press with such weighty allegations against him and your only excuse for this grave omission was that: all efforts to speak with the indicted former public officials failed.
“It is our client’s categorical assertion that no attempts or effort whatsoever were made by you (or any of your reporters) to contact him for his side of the story and apparently also no efforts were made by you to establish the veracity of your story before putting it out for public consumption.
“We are unable to appreciate the urgency that fueled the haste in the publication such that it could not wait for you to verify and ascertain its veracity.
“However, be informed that in the course of your opting to hasten to publish, you have thereby defamed and severely damaged the reputation of our client and lowered his estimation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the public.
“Since your above publication, our client has been receiving all sorts of hate speech and unsavoury remarks and comments from the general public who now shun our client and treat him with disdain and opprobrium.
This is because of your false publication which is nothing short of pure fabrication from the figment of your imagination deliberately contrived with malice to create media sensation purely for self-aggrandizement and profit-making motives.
This, to say the least, is very unethical and most infamous conduct unbecoming of a journalist. And in perpetrating this self-interest motivated and deliberate dissemination of lies, you have damaged the interests and reputation of our client in no small measures.
“Consequently, we therefore demand an immediate retraction (via print, electronic and internet media) of the said false publication as it concerns our client and a letter of apology to our client via the same medium as listed above within 72 hours of your receipt of this letter.
“Or prepare to face the full consequences of the law for reporting libelous and injurious falsehood and misrepresentation about our client, because what was reported by you in the said publication concerning our client are clearly not true,” the statement read.
Leave a Reply