A witness and an operative of the State Security State Services identified as BBB, on Wednesday, told the Federal High Court in Abuja that his office was not involved in the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu in Kenya.

BBB, who was the 2nd prosecution witness (PW-2) in the ongoing trial of Mr Kanu, the leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), told Justice James Omotosho during his cross examination.

While responding to questions from Mr Kanu’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro, SAN, the witness said the SSS does not engage in foreign operations but matters relating to internal security of the country.

He said, “DSS did not kidnap Kanu in Kenya. We are confined to Nigeria. We did not arrest Kanu in Kenya.’’

BBB said though he did not know whether Radio Biafra had stopped broadcasting, he told the court that Mr Kanu confirmed being the founder of the station.

He said the security outfit was not being influenced by politicians or political appointees, but that the agency is under the office of the National Security Adviser (NSA).

He said the service code of conduct requires operatives to always be neutral and objective.

He stressed that the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) does not supervise their work, but that his office can receive letters from any government agency, including the AGF, for further investigation.

The witness maintained that SSS training requires obtaining information where necessary.

Asked if he was part of those who arrested Mr Kanu in Kenya, BBB responded in the negative.

When Erokoro maintained that the SSS was involved in how the defendant was apprehended in Kenya, the PW-1 disagreed with the lawyer.

He said it was not part of his brief to ascertain Mr Kanu’s claim that he was kidnapped in Kenya.

He said he knew Nigeria went through colonial rule but did not read anywhere where Nigerians who called for independence were labelled as terrorists.

On whether he had ever heard of Odimegwu Ojukwu, the witness said Ojukwu was a member of the Nigerian Army, who later decided to wage war against Nigeria.

He said Biafra has never been a recognised entity anywhere in Nigeria.

The witness admitted that though there was nothing wrong in people calling for change through peaceful means, he said Mr Kanu resorted to calling for violence and killings in his broadcasts on Radio Biafra.

Asked if he was aware that Mr Kanu called Simon Ekpa to stop what he was doing, BBB said he was unaware.

On whether he was aware that courts in the country had held that the arrest and detention of the defendant was illegal, the witness said he read about them online and in the newspapers.

Mr Erokoro then tendered three separate judgments given in favour of Kanu by three courts.

Justice Omotosho thereafter admitted the documents into evidence.

The first judgment was delivered on January 19, 2022, by the Umuahia division of the High Court of Abia; the second, delivered on October 26, 2022, by a Federal High Court in Umuahia and the third delivered on October 26, 2023, by a High Court of Enugu State.

In the judgments, the courts faulted Mr Kanu’s arrest and detention and the invasion of his home in Abia State by some soldiers.

The witness, however, said the SSS was only involved in Kanu’s arrest in Lagos, adding that the defendant called for the killing of security personnel.

When Mr Erokoro said that Mr Kanu’s call on his followers to kill security personnel who try to kill them was a self-defence strategy, BBB said he was not aware of any law in Nigeria that allows anybody to kill fellow human beings.

He also said that he was not aware that the Director General of the SSS called on Nigerians to engage in self-defence.

The PW-2 said he was aware that a former Defence Minister, Gen. Theophilus Danjuma, once claimed that security personnel in the country were not neutral in the security challenge being experienced in the country.

Mr Erokoro then suddenly sought an adjournment to continue the cross examination the next date.

In reaction to Mr Erokoro’s request, prosecuting lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, raised an objection.

Mr Awomolo reminded the court that it had on the last date, chose to allocate sufficient time for the defence to conclude with the PW-2 between May 21 and May 22.

He wondered why Mr Erokoro suddenly became unwilling to continue with the witness.

Mr Erokoro however said he decided to ask for an adjournment because the defence plans to play some video recordings which were not immediately available in court.

Justice Omotosho, in his ruling, agreed with Mr Awomolo’s observation that the court, on May 14, chose to clear its schedule to enable the defence to conclude with BBB’s cross examination.

The judge however, agreed to grant the adjournment, warning that the court would deem the defence to have closed its cross-examination of the witness should the defence team fail to conclude with the witness on May 22.

He subsequently adjourned the matter until May 22 for continuation of trial.

Earlier when the matter was called, the lead defence lawyer, Kanu Agabi, SAN, and Mr Awomolo expressed concern about the conduct of a member of the defence’s legal team, who they accused of being behind the misrepresentation of court’s proceedings on his social media platforms.

Mr Agabi said he got a letter from the prosecution in which it expressed concerns about some publications made on social media.

He then sought the court’s opinions on the issue.

The judge pushed the issue back to Mr Agabi and sought his opinion and Mr Agabi responded by saying he would apologise to the court, even though he knew nothing about the publications.

Asked to react, Mr Awomolo confirmed that he wrote a letter on May 14 protesting the misrepresentations that were being published on social media.

Mr Awomolo said he learnt the court’s proceedings on the case were being streamed live by some individuals, some of whom are lawyers.

The prosecuting lawyer noted that the case was a sensitive one that should not be trivialised, adding that “it is not fair to manipulate what happened in court in the public domain.”

While still addressing the court, Mr Awomolo reached for his phone in a bid to draw the court’s attention to what he said the lawyer did on social media.

He handed the phone to Mr Agabi, pointing to a recent post he said the lawyer made on his social media platform.

Mr Agabi collected the phone from Mr Awomolo and told the court that he also read something about himself on social media, misrepresenting happenings in the case.

Reacting, Justice Omotosho said the developments did not benefit both sides, adding “it will only delay proceedings.”

According to the judge, they should not lay emphasis on what is happening on social media.

“Although one of our brothers has not been acting well. I have said it before; we should act professionally. Most of these things are gross misconduct on which you could be disbarred.

It is a misconduct. I don’t want to mention any names. The person knows himself. Let us act well,” Justice Omotosho said.

(NAN)