Firm tackles ICPC over invasion of premises
…Says claim of tax default untrue, misleading
The digital switch over giant, Pinnacle Communications said on Wednesday that the claim by Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) that its operatives attempted to forcefully enter into its premises in Abuja following report of the company tax evasion was untrue and bare face lie.
The company said that the”commission’s claims are grossly inaccurate, misleading and aimed to hurt Pinnacle’s impeccable image known to all and sundry.”
A statement signed by company solicitor Abayomi Oyelola mni said they were not surprised with ICPC’s responses of January 24th & 27th, 2020 denying the brazen unlawful attitude of its operatives.
Pinnacle Communications Ltd had on January 21 in a press conference urged the Attorney General of the Federation, Mr Malami Abubakar SAN, to investigate the operatives of ICPC who unlawfully made attempt to break into the firm’s office in Asokoro area of the FCT without any warrant and order of court.
The company noted that ICPC in its responses, admitted the dastardly act of its operatives but claimed the action taken was precipitated by the requests of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS) to the commission to investigate a case of tax evasion it alleged against pinnacle communications.
“Pinnacle Communications is not a tax defaulter in any way. The company’s tax papers are up to date. This is easy for the commission to verify. So ICPC lied by claiming that its men were at Pinnacle’s office on tax issue”, it stated.
“ICPC also claimed the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) transmitted plots 1718 and 1719 Cadzone A04, belonging to two companies mentioned, to them for investigation. The Pinnacle office invaded is on neither of the two plots quoted. Pinnacle’s office is on Plot 1721,” it further stated.
According to the company “the above shows that the plot on which the Pinnacle office is, which ICPC invaded, was not on the list sent to the commission by FIRS or FCTA for investigation.”
“It is crystal clear that the commission’s operatives did not stumble on the firm’s property as claimed but rather the operatives intentionally invaded Pinnacle.”
He said that since the companies mentioned in the ICPC responses are different from Pinnacle and plots quoted different from that of Pinnacle, there was no reason, whatsoever, for the operatives to violently insist on gaining entrance into the building to effect an arrest and seal the firm. Even if their so-called coordinate was correct, the brazen action at that point would still amount to acting ultra vires.
In any event, it is vitally imperative to state that Pinnacle communications, in whom ownership of the premises invaded by ICPC is vested is not on the radar of FIRS.
He said that ICPC further lied in the response that the Counsel who addressed the Press accosted their operatives on the day of the unlawful invasion.
According to the company Mr Abayomi Oyelola mni, who addressed the press conference was not in Nigeria on the day of the invasion. He returned to Nigeria from London via BA 083 flight, the same day he addressed the press conference. This too can be verified, he said.
Read Also: Over 8 countries to participate in Kaduna Trade Fair
The company said it will desist from descending into the arena of ignominy by joining issues over other false claims of the commission in the letters personally signed by one Mr Akeem Lawal.
The company said it was obvious that Mr Akeem Lawal and ICPC did not get the facts rights or Lawal is outrightly being mischievous and one who has acted in bad faith and not Pinnacle Communications or Abayomi Oyelola, mni.
Pinnacle Communications is both a respectable and humble entity with strong beliefs in the assuaging power and effect of an apology from anyone and entity that has disparaged it.
The company said it encourage the commission to swallow the proverbial humble pie and tender an apology since it has admitted the invasion adding that let wise counsel prevail to avoid endless and or unnecessary and costly litigation .
