•Tukur Mamu
A witness of the Department of State Service (DSS) today told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Tukur Mamu, standing trial on alleged terrorism funding, was not at any time appointed by the federal government to negotiate with terrorists who attacked the Abuja-Kaduna train in 2022.
The witness, who is an operative of DSS, said that Tukur sidelined the Chief of Defence Staff Committee, which was put in place to negotiate for the release of those abducted during the train attack, reports The Guardian.
Led in evidence by DSS lawyer, David Kaswe, the witness whose identity was not made public for security purposes said defendant “was not mandated by the government to engage in any form of investigation or negotiation with terrorists, but acted on his own for his personal benefit.”
The witness alleged that the defendant encouraged terrorists to discuss ransom payments with victims, collected money on their behalf, confirmed amounts, and “facilitated payments illegally.”
He further claimed that the defendant benefited financially from the ransom negotiations and possessed firearms unlawfully, and even provided terrorists with information on how to create a website.
He added that the large sum recovered from the defendant’s Kaduna residence exceeded the threshold permitted by law, and that the defendant’s lifestyle “changed significantly” during the negotiation period.
“He was arrested in the company of four family members while on a trip to Egypt, and he bought two flash cars during the negotiation period,” the witness stated.
During cross-examination, defence counsel Johnson Usman, SAN, challenged several aspects of the DSS investigation.
Usman questioned whether the DSS, which has operatives at all Nigerian airports, verified how the defendant and his family travelled to Egypt, to which the witness replied that he was not aware of their travel details but confirmed that the defendant’s passport was in DSS custody.
When asked whether he was a diligent investigator, the witness affirmed that he was, though he admitted he did not open the defendant’s passport during the investigation, stating it was unnecessary because he worked with a preliminary report.
The defence also queried inconsistencies regarding the negotiation process. Usman suggested that the terrorists asked the victims to propose negotiators, and the victims suggested several names.
The witness agreed that the victims introduced names, but insisted only the defendant (Mamu) agreed to engage with the terrorists, and maintained the defendant was not part of the CDS committee.
Usman further pressed the witness on hostage releases during the crisis. He noted that before the defendant’s involvement, only one hostage had been released.
Meanwhile, Justice Mohammed Garba Umar has adjourned further cross-examination of the witness to January 29, 2026.
