This was revealed during the resumed cross-examination of a prosecution witness known only by the codename “BBB,” an intelligence operative of the DSS, who appeared before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Department of State Services (DSS) has denied any role in the controversial abduction of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, in Kenya.
This was revealed during the resumed cross-examination of a prosecution witness known only by the codename “BBB,” an intelligence operative of the DSS, who appeared before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Grilled by Paul Erokoro, SAN, counsel for the embattled IPOB leader, the masked witness claimed the DSS has no operational jurisdiction outside Nigeria’s territorial bounds, hinting that Kanu’s 2021 rendition from Nairobi was executed by forces beyond the agency’s legal reach.
Pressed further on whether politicians or government ministers could manipulate the DSS, the witness distanced the agency from such influence, insisting that it operates under the direct control of the Office of the National Security Adviser (NSA).
He added that the Attorney General of the Federation does not dictate or interfere in the agency’s covert operations.
BBB gave a sweeping overview of how the DSS gathers its intelligence, mentioning sources ranging from human informants to social media platforms.
Due to their specialised training, he asserted that DSS operatives possess the capacity to extract vital information from any environment.
In a dramatic twist, BBB admitted that Kanu personally told him that he was “kidnapped” in Kenya and ferried into Nigeria against his will. Yet, the intelligence officer was quick to absolve his agency of involvement in the operation, reiterating that the DSS lacks the constitutional mandate to arrest individuals outside Nigeria’s borders.
Pivoting to the substance of the prosecution’s case, the witness accused Kanu of using his Radio Biafra broadcasts to incite widespread violence, including during the 2020 #EndSARS protests.
He claimed the IPOB leader had openly declared his intention to secure Biafra by any means necessary, even if it meant war.
According to the testimony, Kanu’s inciting rhetoric allegedly sparked a series of violent incidents, including the torching of a police station in Ebonyi State, an arson attack on a Lagos State High Court, and the burning of a cargo shed at the Murtala Mohammed International Airport.
As the cross-examination progressed, defence lawyer Erokoro requested an adjournment to enable the team to present a crucial video clip as evidence. The court acceded to the request after earlier admitting certified true copies of judgments from three fundamental rights cases previously filed by Kanu in Abia, Enugu, and the Federal High Court in Umuahia.
Before delving into the courtroom drama, proceedings began with Kanu’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi (SAN), drawing the court’s attention to a complaint by the prosecution’s lead counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), over alleged illegal live-streaming of the trial.
Aloy Ejimakor, a member of Kanu’s legal team, was accused of consistently posting misleading courtroom updates and documents on social media. Awomolo called for a total ban on mobile phones inside the courtroom, lamenting what he described as deliberate attempts to sensationalise the proceedings.
The presiding judge, Justice James Omotosho, did not mince words. He sternly warned all legal counsel to maintain professionalism and avoid conduct capable of derailing the judicial process. He specifically cautioned Ejimakor that continued violation of courtroom protocol could earn him professional sanctions, including being disbarred.
Justice Omotosho reaffirmed that the case was being heard on an accelerated schedule in the interest of justice, particularly for Kanu, who has spent a prolonged period in detention.
He cautioned all parties to avoid actions that could amount to misconduct or fuel further tension in an already politically charged atmosphere.
The judge subsequently adjourned the case to Thursday, May 22, to continue the cross-examination of the second prosecution witness.
SAHARA REPORTERS
Comment here
You must be logged in to post a comment.