They warned US-based newspaper The Washington Post not to allow Aiteo’s rivals to abuse it to promote such “unsubstantiated” links.
They also warned media houses not to advertise themselves for unhealthy content to borrow business rivalry in Nigeria’s oil and gas industry.
In a joint press conference the groups claimed that the allegations that were about to be published in the Washington Post against Benedict Peters and Aiteo had already been made by competent courts are pending or pending in court.
Her statement signed by Mr. Tochukwu Ohazuruike argued that the purpose of the publication could only be to challenge the integrity of Peters and the company.
< They alleged that the campaign promoters plan to hire a Washington Post Staff Writer, Mr. Peter Whoriskey, who has already begun investigating the matter set up. They noted that Whoriskey, which focuses on the study of economic and financial issues, has done no work in or on Nigeria.
The explanation goes in part: “Of the five questions that Mr. Whoriskey asked inquired, question one has been resolved by a competent court in Nigeria and the decision has been made widely known. A simple internet search could have availed Mr. Whoriskey of the judgment of the case and the current state of affairs.
“Questions two through five were extracted directly from unchecked allegations contained in a previously filed first amended confirmed complaint were of the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.
“There are a multitude of questions that the Washington Post is more likely to have to answer that directly question their authenticity. It will destroy the Washington Post’s long-held image that its employees have used the platform for a global smear campaign and unhealthy business rivalry. “
In response to allegations against Peters, groups claimed,” Mr. Peters has stated that he has never received a favor from Diezani Alison-Madueke, through mediation or otherwise, and so there is nothing to be thankful for. He denounced any attempt to link the purchase of his property with Diezani under such conditions.
“His purchase of the furniture served his desire to furnish a property that he owned, and this furniture is still in the said property today to be found at Harley House 58. No furniture that belonged to him cannot be found anywhere else than his own.
“The furniture found at Diezani Alison-Madueke’s UK address does not belong to him and certainly can not having was the same one found in his said property at Harley House 58.
“We hope that with these answers we would have pleased Mr. Whoriskey and got him to let his sponsors know that that the property is dead on arrival and cannot be revived.
“We also tell all these people who would like to choke these questions again in the future that the answers are already available in public space, as nothing is hidden and there is nothing media house can dig up again. So you don’t have to take jobs from the sponsors of this smear campaign. “