THE Department of State Services (DSS) has arraigned one of its retired officers, Nwaogu Ezeakolam, before the Federal High Court in Abuja for allegedly associating himself with the proscribed terrorist organisation, the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB).
News Point Nigeria reports that Ezeakolam was arraigned before Justice Mohammed Umar on a four-count charge filed by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation (DPPF), Rotimi Oyedepo (SAN), bordering on alleged support for and membership of IPOB, as well as offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, and the Cybercrimes (Prevention, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended.
Among other allegations, the retired DSS officer was accused of rendering support and material assistance to IPOB, contrary to and punishable under Section 13 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
He was also accused of joining IPOB despite allegedly knowing that it is a proscribed organisation, an offence the DSS said is contrary to and punishable under Section 25 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
In addition, Ezeakolam was accused of posting messages on social media platforms allegedly calculated to induce unsuspecting members of the public to support IPOB, an offence said to be contrary to and punishable under Section 26 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
The retired DSS officer was further charged with posting messages on social media platforms aimed at advancing the cause of IPOB.
According to the secret police, the alleged offence is contrary to and punishable under Section 18 of the Cybercrimes (Prevention, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended.
When the charges were read to him, Ezeakolam pleaded not guilty to all four counts.
Following his plea, counsel to the DSS, Memunat Oladunjoye, asked the court to fix a date for the commencement of trial.
However, counsel to the defendant, Godfirst Maduka, applied for time to file a bail application, a request Justice Umar said could be filed at any time.
Justice Mohammed Umar subsequently fixed October 29 for the commencement of trial and ordered that the accused be remanded at the Kuje Correctional Centre pending the hearing and determination of his bail application.
According to the charge sheet, Count One reads: “That you, Nwaogu Ihechimere Ezeakolam, adult, male, sometime 2025 and 2026, at Abuja and Abia State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did directly and indirectly render support by providing moral assistance and disseminating terrorist information of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB, a proscribed organisation) through the internet and your social media platforms, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 13 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
Count Two states: “That you, Nwaogu Ihechimere Ezeakolam, adult, male, sometime 2025 and 2026, in Abia State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did join Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organization, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 25 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
Count Three alleges: “That you, Nwaogu Ihechimere Ezeakolam, adult, male, sometime 2025 and 2026, at Abuja and Abia State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did knowingly directly and indirectly aid and abet the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by posting on social media platforms messages calculated to induce unsuspecting members of the public to support Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organisation, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 26 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.”
Count Four reads: “That you, Nwaogu Ihechimere Ezeakolam, adult, male, sometime 2025 and 2026, at Abuja and Abia State, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, on social media platforms did post and cause to be accessed messages aimed at advancing the cause of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a proscribed organisation, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 18 of the Cybercrimes (Prevention, Prevention, etc.) Act, 2015, as amended.”