The trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), resumed on Friday at the Federal High Court in Abuja, with significant testimony delivered under cross-examination by a witness from the Department of State Services (DSS).
The case, which has been ongoing since 2015, saw a major turn as the DSS witness—identified only by the initials AAA—told the court that no instrument of violence or evidence linking Kanu to terrorism was found in his possession or on the woman who was arrested alongside him.
Justice James Omotosho, who presided over the proceedings, had earlier granted the Federal Government’s request for prosecution witnesses to testify behind protective screens to conceal their identities during the trial.
Defence Team Expands Amidst Legal Tensions
At the resumed session, lead defence counsel and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Kanu Agabi, informed the court of a 22-member defence team. However, Justice Omotosho ruled that only 13 lawyers would be allowed in court, according to the list officially submitted.
Four additional senior legal practitioners — Audu Nunghe, Joseph Akubo, Emeka Etiaba, and Onyechi Ikpeazu — joined the legal representation for the IPOB leader.
You May Also Want to Read: Terrorism Trial: Court Grants Secret Testimony for Witnesses in Nnamdi Kanu’s Case.
No Weapons, No Violent Tools Found — DSS Operative.
During cross-examination, AAA stated that his role was limited to arresting the defendant, recording his statement, and accompanying him to Abuja for further investigation. He confirmed that while Kanu’s phone was analyzed, the content was deemed irrelevant and thus excluded from court evidence.
When asked by the defence if any violent or offensive materials were recovered during the arrest, AAA answered in the negative. He also acknowledged that most of the items seized nearly a decade ago had likely become obsolete.
The witness admitted there was a record of items returned to Kanu but clarified that he did not personally maintain those documents.
No Direct Link to Violence.
The defence questioned the witness on whether any acts of violence had been carried out as a result of Kanu’s statements or directives. AAA responded that he was unaware of any specific individual who had acted violently based on the IPOB leader’s comments.
Asked if any other individuals were currently standing trial for terrorism in connection with Biafra agitation, the witness said he was unaware of any ongoing prosecutions except for Kanu’s case. He did, however, acknowledge that IPOB had supporters like Simon Ekpa, whose extradition was reportedly being pursued by the government.
When questioned on whether Kanu had incited violence through social media, the witness said that although some statements were found online, he could not confirm any direct consequence of violence stemming from them.
Court Pressed on Broader Security Concerns.
Highlighting broader insecurity in the country, the defence asked if the killings in Kaduna, Zamfara, Benue, Plateau, and other northern regions were tied to separatist agitations. The witness replied, “No.”
AAA also confirmed that Nigeria’s highways, though relatively safer, have not been immune to security threats such as attacks on farms, places of worship, and schools. He acknowledged that these incidents were not linked to any Biafra-related agitation.
More Read
Background of the Legal Battle.
Nnamdi Kanu was first arrested in Lagos in 2015 and charged with terrorism and treasonable felony. In 2018, Justice Binta Nyako severed his trial from that of four co-defendants after Kanu fled the country.
Kanu was re-arrested in Kenya and extradited back to Nigeria in June 2021, reigniting legal proceedings after years of delays.
The case has faced prolonged setbacks, including procedural challenges and absence of witnesses, which had hindered progress until this week’s testimony.
You May Also Want to Read: Court Resumes Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial, Admits Key Evidence.
Next Steps in the Trial.
As the court continues to hear evidence, the defence is expected to challenge the validity of the charges, citing lack of direct involvement in violent acts. The outcome of the case is being closely watched, with implications for Nigeria’s internal security and separatist tensions.
