Human rights lawyer and counsel to Omoyele Sowore, convener of RevolutionNow Movement, Femi Falana on Monday alleged that the Nigerian government offered the activist a “death warrant” deal while in custody of the Department of State Services, DSS.
Falana disclosed that the Nigerian government reached out for the deal during Sowore’s first 45 days in detention.
“They went to a court behind us and got an order to detain Sowore for 45 days to investigate his alleged terrorism. At the end of the investigation, nothing was found but they went to him in detention to reach a deal.”
The activist stated that the DSS also reached out to him to convince Sowore when they could not persuade the Sahara Reporters’s publisher to take the deal he was offered.
“When they could not succeed, they met me and they wanted me to persuade him to agree to sign his death warrant and I told them off,” he said.
Falana said the intelligence agency “filed charges” against Sowore when they could not convince him to take the deal.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria, also debunked the press statement issued Saturday by the Department of State Services, in which it denied that its men invaded the court to re-arrest Sowore last Friday at the premises of a court.
Falana described the DSS statement as self-contradictory, in that the DSS made an unsuccessful attempt to absolve itself of responsibility for the armed invasion of the court and the illegal re-arrest of Omoyele Sowore, without a warrant or a charge.
The renowned human rights activist revealed that the leader of the armed DSS operatives who stormed Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu’s court on Friday 6 December, to arrest Omoyele Sowore actually apologised to the judge for the desecration of her court.
“In rationalizing the re-arrest of Sowore, which is denied in the same Press statement, the Service alleged that Sowore held meetings with some people. Assuming without conceding that Sowore held meetings with some people in Transcorp Hotel as alleged by the SSS, why did the Prosecution not inform the trial court that the defendant had breached his bail condition? He added