From Victor Osula, Abuja
The trial of the detained leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, resumed on Friday at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Kanu is facing a seven-count amended charge bordering on treason and terrorism filed by the Federal Government, following a Supreme Court ruling on December 15, 2023, which overturned the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
The appellate court had on October 13, 2022, dismissed the charges and ordered his release. Kanu has remained in the custody of the Department of State Services (DSS) since his re-arrest and extradition from Kenya on June 27, 2021.
At the resumed trial on Friday, the prosecution’s first witness, a DSS operative identified as PWAAA, told the court under cross-examination that no weapon of terrorism or violence was recovered from Kanu at the time of his arrest in a Lagos hotel on October 15, 2015.
He also confirmed that no items suggesting a breach of public peace were recovered from the woman who was arrested alongside Kanu.
This followed Justice James Omotosho’s Tuesday ruling allowing the Federal Government’s request for its witnesses to testify behind screens.
Earlier in the week, the court admitted into evidence items recovered from Kanu during his 2015 arrest.
The items included a black laptop; two multi-mix transmitters; two Apple iPads with pouches; two MacBooks; several Glo, MTN, and Etisalat modems; flash drives; a camcorder; microphones and headphones; multiple phones; Nigerian and British passports; several wristwatches; perfumes; shoes; and other personal effects. Documents recovered also included IPOB-related materials and multiple bank cards.
During cross-examination by Kanu’s lead counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), the DSS operative acknowledged that all items were Kanu’s personal belongings.
He added that he was not responsible for analyzing the devices, as his mandate was limited to making the arrest and obtaining a statement.
He further admitted that although he analyzed Kanu’s cell phone, the report was not submitted to the court as it was deemed irrelevant.
When asked about the status of the seized items, the witness said they may have lost their value over the years.
The witness also told the court that Kanu’s statement was obtained without legal representation and that no individual had been brought forward to confront Kanu with any specific terrorism-related allegation.
