A prosecution witness in the ongoing terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu has told a Federal High Court in Abuja that the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader admitted to smuggling a Radio Biafra transmitter into Anambra State in 2015.
The witness, identified as PWCCC and an operative of the Department of State Services (DSS), testified on Wednesday that Kanu confessed during interrogation to installing the radio equipment in Ubuluisiuzor, Ihiala Local Government Area, to promote the Biafran self-determination movement.
According to the witness, Kanu made the admission during an interview with DSS operatives on November 4, 2015 — a video of which was played in court and accepted as an exhibit.
The DSS has previously submitted audio recordings of Kanu’s broadcasts in which he was allegedly heard inciting violence and calling for the killing of prominent Nigerians. Another DSS officer also testified that Kanu’s broadcasts led to attacks on individuals and institutions by his supporters.
However, the proceedings took a dramatic turn when the Federal Government’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, attempted to tender one of Kanu’s written statements. Upon being shown the document by his lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi, SAN, Kanu claimed he made the statement under duress and without the presence of a lawyer.
He alleged that the coercion began during his transport from Lagos to Abuja, where he was reportedly assaulted, chained, and blindfolded by DSS operatives.
During cross-examination, Kanu reiterated that his 2015 detention was not sanctioned by a court and that his interviews were conducted in an intimidating environment.
In contrast, another DSS operative, codenamed PWAAA, denied all allegations, insisting the interviews were conducted peacefully and professionally, describing Kanu’s claims as “baseless and an afterthought.”
In response to the claims, Justice James Omotosho ordered a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of the disputed statement. He directed both parties to submit their written addresses by Thursday, May 29, and scheduled the adoption of arguments and a ruling on the matter for Friday, May 31, at 2:00 p.m.
The case was adjourned accordingly.
Comments