•Embattled IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu in court
The second prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of Nnamdi Kanu has told Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja that the Eastern Security Network (ESN), established by Kanu, is an illegal group, unlike Amotekun, which is backed by law.
Testifying under the codename “BBB”, the witness made the claim while being re-examined by the prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), who asked him to compare the activities of Amotekun and ESN, reports Channels TV.
The witness stated that Amotekun was established through laws passed by the Houses of Assembly of the six South-West states, whereas the ESN has no legal backing for its existence.
He further testified that the Director-General of the Department of State Services (DSS) had, at some point, advocated for community policing initiatives to combat insecurity — on the condition that such efforts receive guidance and approval from recognised security agencies.
Earlier during the hearing, defence counsel Paul Erokoro (SAN) tendered three video recordings contained in a flash drive, which the court admitted into evidence.
The three videos were subsequently played in open court.
In one of the recordings, the DG of the DSS was seen speaking at a public event where he encouraged communities to create a first line of defence against bandits and other external threats.
He was heard saying, “The practical approach to mobilising people is to get everyone involved. It is impossible for the security agencies to deploy to every part of the country.
“What we need to do is to make communities set up a first line of defence. We have to allow some level of armament for the communities to rise and defend themselves first, but under the guidance and approval of security agencies. The time to start it is now.”
When asked by Erokoro whether the DSS DG was not effectively calling for communities to arm themselves, the witness clarified that the DG had specifically noted that such efforts must be under the supervision of security agencies.
Another video played in court showed former Defence Minister, General Theophilus Danjuma, speaking at a public forum.
In the footage, Danjuma alleged that some members of the armed forces were not neutral in the ongoing killings across the country.
Upon identification of Danjuma as the speaker, Erokoro asked the witness to comment on the implication of Danjuma’s remarks.
The witness declined, stating that Erokoro should direct such a question to Danjuma himself.
The third video featured the Governor of Imo State, Hope Uzodinma, lamenting ongoing killings in his state and attributing them to the actions of unnamed politicians.
Erokoro questioned whether Uzodinma’s statement contradicted the witness’ earlier claim that members of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) were behind the killings in Orlu, Imo State.
The witness maintained that the DSS’ position was based on the findings of its investigation.
“Our investigation revealed those who were killed by suspected IPOB members, and we mentioned their names. The governor did not mention any names of the people he said were killed,” the witness said.
He affirmed that IPOB was proscribed by a court order and that Kanu remained a member both before and after the group’s proscription.
When asked about his knowledge of the EndSARS protests, the witness stated that the demonstrations were a response to calls for the disbandment of the police’s Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS).
He added that he was aware that several states —including Lagos — and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had established commissions of enquiry to investigate the protests and related incidents.
He agreed with Erokoro that the report issued by the Lagos State panel did not name IPOB as a participant and did not categorise the protests as acts of terrorism.
Erokoro subsequently tendered the Lagos State commission’s report, which was admitted into evidence.
Before adjourning proceedings for the day, Justice Omotosho directed the prosecution to conclude its case within six days and allocated nine days for the defence to present its argument.
Following an agreement by the parties, the judge adjourned further hearings to May 28 and 29, and June 6, 16, 18 and 19.
