This letter from Muntaka is neither a retraction nor an apology, for a number of reasons.

1. First, he still calls it a "disclosure". (Check your disctionary). Meaning he was making secret facts public. This then suggests what he said were facts. True then, and still true now.

2. In para 3, he's concerned about scandalising the entire judiciary because he wasn't specific. That concern is remedied by naming the Justice & shaming same. This pseudo apology doesn't exonerate the judiciary in anyway. Only gives reason for conspiracy theorists to speculate.

3. In para 4, we see that the "retraction" & "apology" is for harm done the judiciary. (Not for him lying, but for the damage done. This actually means he spoke the truth, but is sorry for the damage done by speaking the truth).

It says nothing about the mendacity of his claims.

4. In para 5, we learn that there are indeed some "sleeping" dogs, but based on good counsel, he's decided to let them lie. Which means there are outstanding issues & suspicions but he won't go into those. It adds to the harm done the judiciary's image & raises more questions.

5. This sounds more like a man being hushed up, rather than a penitent remorseful for the error of his ways.

We need a categorical admission of the untruthfulness of his claims or the name of said Justice. If he can't name & back it with evidence, he must be severely punished!