Niger, Nigeria – The Department of State Services (DSS) has refuted claims that it was responsible for the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), in Kenya in 2021. This denial emerged during a court hearing on May 21, where a witness from the DSS faced cross-examination.
Mr. BBB, a second prosecution witness for Kanu’s ongoing case, provided testimony during questioning by Kanu’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro, SAN. The Nigerian government has accused Kanu of terrorism, putting forth various allegations related to his influence over violent acts in the southeastern region of Nigeria.
When asked about the term “rendition,” the witness acknowledged his understanding but insisted that such actions are not part of the DSS’s operational procedures. Under Erokoro’s scrutiny, the witness stated he could not confirm the identity of those who arrested Kanu in Kenya, emphasizing that the DSS operates solely within Nigeria’s borders.
The conversation shifted to violence in Lagos, where Kanu has been accused of inciting his supporters to commit acts of arson against government properties. Erokoro pressed the witness for specifics regarding the incidents, including the number and identification of vehicles burned, but BBB admitted he did not possess that information. He noted that the violence followed directives from Kanu’s broadcasts.
Further queries addressed allegations linking Kanu’s supporters with the destruction of public facilities, including the Lagos High Court and the airport. Again, the witness failed to provide names or specific details about those involved but reiterated that the actions stemmed from Kanu’s instructions to his followers during his media addresses.
Kanu’s legal team also introduced evidence of a court ruling awarding him one billion naira in damages due to an illegal military invasion of his residence in 2017. BBB referenced this military action, stating that Kanu’s broadcasts were directly associated with the subsequent violence in the area. He later confirmed that he learned about the 2017 invasion through Kanu himself, despite not being aware of a judicial ruling on the matter.
During the proceedings, Erokoro presented additional court judgments related to Kanu’s case, prompting the trial judge, Justice James Omotosho, to accept them as evidence. However, the witness expressed unfamiliarity with these documents, stating that his role was limited to investigating the allegations presented by the Attorney General’s office.
As the cross-examination progressed, Erokoro requested a brief adjournment to analyze audio recordings pertinent to the case. This request was met with objection from the federal government’s lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, but was ultimately granted by Justice Omotosho, who mandated that the cross-examination conclude at the next session.
Before the day’s proceedings commenced, Justice Omotosho issued a warning regarding alleged unprofessional conduct by Kanu’s defense team. Awomolo, representing the federal government, voiced displeasure over the public discourse surrounding the trial, labeling it as embarrassing. Justice Omotosho advised lawyers to ignore misinformation circulating online, urging them instead to concentrate fully on the case at hand.
In closing discussions, Kanu’s lawyer was cautioned to refrain from sharing sensitive material on social media, a practice the judge labeled as misconduct. Justice Omotosho emphasized the potential ramifications of such actions, highlighting that they could jeopardize a lawyer’s standing in the legal profession.
This ongoing trial has attracted heightened attention, reflecting Nigeria’s complex security challenges, particularly regarding organizations advocating for independence in the southeastern region.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. The details presented, including individuals, facts, circumstances, and narratives, may not be completely accurate. Requests for retraction or corrections can be sent to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.