By a concerned security officer

The questions we have for the author of the rejoinder are as follows:
1. The names of the concern officers are not from any other tribes but from the Jola tribes.

2. The 2017 intelligence brief wrote highlighted the same names and as he claimed or write in the rejoinder shows the army high command acceptance to have incarcerated and dismissed Jola Officers based on unproven intelligence report.

AD

3. Why the author seems concern over the issue if the report was not written by them.

4. All the officers reportedly sacked and incarcerated were not from other tribes but from the Jola tribes and he has the mouth to accept that ‘gone are the days of such reports’ and he’s happy and to make that statement.

5. We have evidence that such reports were never signed and no letter head because the authors are trained to indicate codes. The pattern and the language of the report is not from either of the national security apparatus but from the military institutions/ intelligence as the originator.

7. The high command have on several times during these dispensation acted based on no evidence to subject the Jola Officers from either sacking or dismissed.

8. Let the CDS gives us a break with this nonesense rejoinder. Their intentions will no longer work this time as the C-In-C is already aware of what’s his and anytime he’s going to act will be base on evidence and nothing more.

Join The Conversation