THE trial of the embattled leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, resumed on Friday before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Abuja, with the cross-examination of principal witness, who said he did not find any instrument of terrorism on Kanu.
The court had granted the request of the Federal Government for witnesses to testify behind the screens.
While the prosecution counsel is Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), a former Attorney General of the Federation, Kanu Agabi, led the defence team.
An operative of the Department of State Services, known simply as AAA, appeared as PW1.
When AAA was asked if he was the officer conducting the interview in the video played in court, he said that five officers were in the room, and that he was one of them.
He said his role in the investigation was limited to arresting the defendant, obtaining his statement, and escorting him to Abuja for onward investigation.
On the items presented in court, AAA was asked if there was anything which, on the face of it, was offensive, and he said no.
When asked if he had analysed any of the items recovered from him, he said he analysed only his phone.
He said the phone was in evidence, though there was no analysis in evidence because they considered it immaterial to the case.
When asked, “Do you agree that in the 10 years since you confiscated these items, many of them have lost their use?” AAA said, “Yes”.
AAA was asked whether there is a record of the items he claimed the DSS returned to the defendant. He said yes, but noted that he didn’t personally keep the records.
PW1 further disclosed that he did not find any instrument of violence on the lady with Kanu and did not consider her company as facilitating terrorism.
When Agabi asked the DSS witness whether he found “any instrument of terrorism on the defendant,” he said, “No.”
Replying to a question about whether he (AAA) contacted anyone whom the defendant mentioned as working with him, he said the defendant didn’t mention any names, adding that he did not know whether other people were standing terrorism trial with the defendant in this case.
“I put it to you that there’s no other person in the whole of Nigeria who is standing terrorism trial for Biafra agitation except the defendant,” Agabi told the PW1.
However, AAA said he knew some people stood trial with the defendant earlier, but didn’t know the state of those trials now.
He mentioned that he had read from social media and newspapers that the defendants had supporters, like Simon Ekpa, who also carried on with the agitation.
He also said he knew that the DSS was in the process of extraditing Simon Ekpa to Nigeria to face charges.
When ask whether the defendant was charged with damaging anybody’s property, AAA answered, “Maybe not personally and virtually”.
He said there were social media messages where the defendant was inciting violence but did not know one person who carried out any act of violence because the defendant incited him.
PW1 further said though he could not remember whether the defendant said there is corruption, youth unemployment, and a lack of development in Nigeria, but remembers the defendant calling Nigeria a zoo.
When asked whether he remembered that the defendant said IPOB was not an armed group and does not give armed training to its members, he said he remembered the defendant saying IPOB does not bear arms.
“There have been killings in Kaduna, Zamfara, Benue, Plateau, and other parts of the North. Are those killings based on any agitation for separation?” the defence counsel asked.
“To the best of my knowledge, no,” AAA answered.