David Mark to EFCC, other agencies on N748m house: Stop chasing shadows

Mark said the claim that he purchased the house illegally were spurious, contrived and baseless, adding that he never flouted any law in buying it

A former President of the Senate, David Mark, has asked the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and other government agencies seeking to find fault with his purchase of the former residence of the Senate President in Apo, Abuja for N748 million to stop chasing shadows.
Mark said the claim that he purchased the house illegally were spurious, contrived and baseless, adding that he never flouted any law in buying it.
In a statement by his media aide, Paul Mumeh, on Tuesday, Mark said: “The property was ‘duly offered for sale, bid for, and purchased like any other person would in line with Federal Government’s Monetisation Policy that was started during the time of President Olusegun Obasanjo.
“I had the right of first refusal. Even if I did not purchase it, someone else would have.
“I am a law-abiding citizen. I did not flout any law.
“Curiously, four houses occupied by the then Presiding Officers of National Assembly were offered to the occupants. All of us, me as the then President of the Senate, Deputy President of the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dimeji Bankole and his Deputy Bayero Nafada were all given the same offer.
“I am at a loss as to why it is now a subject of contention.”
Mark said if the investigation was all about the elections and politics of 2019, no one can alter the will of God.
He said if it also has to do with his choice of political party, nothing can also be done about that.
Mark is a member of the Peoples Democratic Party, while the government at the federal level is the All Progressives Congress.
The statement by Mark added: “If this persecution is about politics, my political party and the 2019 elections, I dare say that only God and Nigerians would decide. No amount of persecution would alter the will of God.
“I had refrained from commenting on this because it is already in the law Court. But they have taken the matter to the court of public opinion.”

Comments