Mohamed Garba
In a dramatic courtroom disclosure at the Federal High Court in Abuja, a senior Department of State Services operative, identified only by the code name PWAAA, testified for the Federal Government that no terrorism or violence-related weapon was recovered from Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu at the time of his arrest. The witness, who has served the DSS for 18 years, detailed the events surrounding Kanu’s October 2015 capture at the Golden Tulip Hotel in Lagos, emphasizing that the items confiscated from him were primarily personal belongings and radio equipment linked to his controversial broadcast network, Radio Biafra.
During the proceedings, which formed part of the high-profile trial of the secessionist leader, PWAAA recounted his role in the operation alongside fellow DSS operatives. “I was assigned to secure Kanu and obtain a statement,” he revealed in evidence led by the government’s counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN. Notably, the witness stated that while personal effects and a range of technical equipment were seized—including laptops, mobile devices, transmitters, and miscellaneous accessories—no armaments or materials that could be classified as terrorism weapons were found.
A video recording of Kanu’s interrogation was replayed in open court, complementing the witness’s testimony. The recording, along with Kanu’s written statement from October 15, 2015, where he admitted to establishing Radio Biafra in London, reinforced the narrative that his arrest was linked to his broadcasting activities rather than possession of weaponry. Kanu’s statement also disclosed that he was interrogated in the absence of legal counsel, a factor that has drawn both scrutiny and criticism from his supporters.The items brought into evidence were displayed across four separate cases.
They ranged from sophisticated communication tools—such as multi-mix transmitters, various modems, and audio equipment—to personal effects including clothing and passports. While these assets were admitted without contest, the witness underscored that, “even though these are ordinary items, their intended use could be perceived as provocative given the context of Kanu’s actions.”
Further testimony during cross-examination added another layer to the case. Kanu’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN, pressed PWAAA on whether other individuals involved in the IPOB agitation had been prosecuted. The witness named Simon Ekpa among those allegedly working in tandem with Kanu in secessionist activities and confirmed that Ekpa had been detained abroad, pending extradition proceedings.
However, when pressed about whether Kanu was charged with acts of violence or property damage, the operative clarified that while some charges related to terrorism—which by definition involve using violence or coercion—the allegations were not directly linked to any violent act by Kanu himself.