Alleged Terrorism: DSS Denies Involvement In Nnamdi Kanu’s Kenya Arrest
THECONSCIENCE NG reports that Thehe Department of State Services (DSS) has distanced itself from the controversial arrest of the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, in Kenya, insisting its operations are limited strictly to Nigeria’s territorial borders.
This emerged during cross-examination of a prosecution witness, with code name BBB, an intelligence officer from the DSS.
The cross examination of the prosecution witness resumed shortly after by Paul Erokoro, who conducted proceedings on behalf of the defence.
Responding to questions, whether the DSS can be influenced by politicians or ministers, the witness stated that the agency is under the office of the National Security Adviser. He also clarified that the Attorney General does not teleguide the operations of the DSS.
Responding to questions, whether the DSS can be influenced by politicians or ministers, the witness stated that the agency is under the office of the National Security Adviser. He also clarified that the Attorney General does not teleguide the operations of the DSS.
Asked about the mode of intelligence gathering by the DSS, the witness noted that the sources are many, including human, social media, among others.
The witness further said that owing to their mode of training, DSS operatives have the capacity to get information where necessary.
Probed further, the witness said he was told by Nnamdi Kanu that he was ‘kidnapped’ from Kenya and returned to Nigeria in 2021. On allegations that the dss carried out the act, Mr BBB stated that the agency lacks the powers to effect arrest beyond Nigeria’s borders.
The witness, therefore, restated that Kanu, via his Radio Biafra broadcasts, incited violence, including during the EndSARS protests in 2020. The witness added that the defendant expressed readiness to make Bbiafra possible by all means, including war.
Mr BBB stressed that the inciting comments made by the IPOB leader led to the burning of a police station in Ebonyi State, a Lagos state high court, and the cargo shed of the Murtala Mohammed Airport in Lagos.
At some point during cross examination, Paul Erokoro, sought adjournment, informing the court that there is a video clip that the defense seeks to tender. He asked for some time to make that possible.
Meanwhile, the court admitted as evidence, certified true copies of judgments of three fundamental rights enforcement lawsuits instituted by nnamdi kanu. These are those of the Abia State high court, federal high court, Umuahia division and another by the high court of Enugu State.
Just before the commencement of the cross examination, the trial judge warned against live streaming of court proceedings and negative use of social media in the trial, sounding a note of warning against Aloy Ejimakor, a member of the defence team and others that were in the habit of posting live stream and court documents on the social media.
The day’s proceedings began with lead counsel for the defence, Kanu Agabi, informing the court of a letter by the lead counsel for the prosecution, Adegboyega Awomolo, about illegal live streaming of court proceedings.
He recommended that phones be banned from the courtroom. He lamented the action of Aloy Ejimakor, a member of the defense team who posts misleading information on social media. He said the case is too serious for anyone to trivialise in the manner that it’s being done.
In his intervention, Justice James Omotosho said he granted an accelerated hearing of the case in the interest of all parties, particularly for Nnamdi Kanu, who has been in custody for too long.
The judge charged all parties in the case to act professionally to ensure progress. He further warned Ejimakor to stop such conduct that may warrant the disbarring of a lawyer.
Justice Omotosho, therefore, charged all parties in the case to avoid acts that amount to misconduct and watch what they post on social media.
Justice James Omotosho subsequently adjourned the case till Thursday, 22 May for the conclusion of the cross examination of the second prosecution witness.
