DSS Denies Involvement in Nnamdi Kanu's Arrest in Kenya: Full Courtroom Breakdown
Abuja, Nigeria — May 21, 2025 — In a landmark development at the Federal High Court in Abuja, a Department of State Services (DSS) operative known only by the initials BBB firmly denied any involvement by the Nigerian security agency in the arrest of Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), in Kenya. This revelation came during a high-profile cross-examination that shed light on the controversial extradition and detention of the separatist leader.
The DSS, often in the spotlight due to its key role in Nigeria’s internal security, has repeatedly been accused of violating due process in its operations. However, during Wednesday’s court proceedings, the testimony of the DSS witness sought to distance the agency from any illegal cross-border actions.
“We are confined to Nigeria. We did not arrest Kanu in Kenya,” BBB said during questioning by Kanu’s legal counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN. “DSS did not kidnap Kanu in Kenya.”
This quote, clear and direct, reinforced the DSS's longstanding claim that it only operates within Nigeria’s borders and has no jurisdiction for foreign missions.
DSS Testifies Before Justice Omotosho
The testimony was delivered before Justice James Omotosho, with BBB appearing as the second prosecution witness. The DSS officer reiterated that their operations are focused strictly on domestic affairs.
“We are not involved in foreign missions. The DSS operates within Nigeria,” he stated.
This part of the testimony is crucial in understanding the government's position on the international controversy surrounding Kanu’s arrest. Kanu, who had fled Nigeria following his initial bail in 2017, was later re-arrested under circumstances that many human rights advocates have described as an abduction in a foreign country—specifically Kenya. His reappearance in Nigeria sparked a legal and political uproar.
Radio Biafra and Internal Security
During the cross-examination, Paul Erokoro SAN also questioned the DSS officer about Radio Biafra, a media outlet often associated with IPOB's separatist ideology.
“Kanu told us he is the founder of Radio Biafra,” BBB admitted, although he said he was unsure whether the station was still operational.
This acknowledgement further reinforces the Nigerian government’s long-standing stance that Kanu plays a central role in IPOB’s communication network, which has been accused of inciting violence.
DSS Claims Political Neutrality
The DSS operative was also pressed on whether the agency operates independently or under political influence.
“We are not supervised by politicians or the Attorney General. The DSS can receive letters from government offices like the AGF, but we carry out our investigations independently,” he said. “Our code of conduct requires us to always be neutral and objective.”
This assertion is significant in the context of Nigeria’s ongoing political tensions. Accusations of political bias and manipulation often plague Nigerian security agencies. However, the DSS maintains it adheres to professionalism and neutrality in all its duties.
Participation in Arrest Denied
On the question of whether he had personally been involved in the Kenya arrest operation, BBB replied:
“No, I was not part of any such operation.”
Kanu’s lawyer then shifted the focus to the legality of the arrest itself, referencing previous court decisions that had ruled against the method of Kanu’s apprehension and detention.
“Are you aware that several courts have held that Kanu’s arrest and detention were unlawful?” Erokoro asked.
To this, the witness responded:
“I read it online and in the newspapers.”
Court Judgments Admitted as Evidence
Three separate court judgments were tendered by the defence and admitted into evidence. These include:
-
January 19, 2022 ruling from the Abia State High Court
-
October 26, 2022 judgment by the Federal High Court in Umuahia
-
October 26, 2023 ruling from a State High Court in Enugu
Each of these decisions condemned both the arrest and the military invasion of Kanu’s home, reinforcing the claims of human rights violations made by IPOB and its supporters.
On Biafra and Peaceful Advocacy
A crucial moment in the cross-examination came when the broader issue of Biafra and political dissent was addressed. When asked whether the agitation for Biafra is inherently illegal, BBB responded:
“Biafra has never been a recognised entity in Nigeria.”
“There’s nothing wrong with people calling for change through peaceful means,” he added, “but Kanu had resorted to calling for violence and killings in his broadcasts.”
The officer's statement draws a sharp line between peaceful political agitation and what the government perceives as incitement to violence. This distinction could prove important in how the courts and public interpret the ongoing IPOB saga.
Self-Defence or Incitement?
Kanu’s statements encouraging self-defence have been interpreted differently by supporters and critics. When asked if telling followers to defend themselves amounted to a legitimate call for self-protection, the DSS witness disagreed.
“I’m not aware of any law in Nigeria that allows anybody to kill a fellow human being,” BBB stated.
This perspective reveals the DSS’s interpretation of Kanu’s messages—not as self-defence, but as incitement to violence.
Questions Around Simon Ekpa and the DSS DG
The court also touched on Simon Ekpa, a controversial figure often linked with violent enforcement of IPOB’s sit-at-home orders. BBB claimed he was unaware of any directives from Kanu instructing Ekpa to stop his activities.
He also denied hearing any public call by the DSS Director General encouraging Nigerians to arm themselves in self-defence.
Interestingly, BBB confirmed awareness of former Defence Minister General Theophilus Danjuma’s statement that Nigerian security agencies were not neutral in the ongoing security crisis.
Adjournment Sought for Video Evidence
In a surprising turn, Erokoro requested an adjournment mid-cross-examination in order to present video evidence.
Prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo SAN objected:
“The court already allocated May 21 and 22 to allow the defence complete the cross-examination. Why the sudden change?”
Erokoro explained:
“The videos are not available in court at the moment. That’s why we need an adjournment.”
Justice Omotosho granted the request but issued a stern warning:
“The defence must conclude on May 22. If not, the court will deem the cross-examination closed.”
Concerns Over Social Media Misrepresentation
Earlier in the day, lead counsels Kanu Agabi SAN and Adegboyega Awomolo SAN raised concerns about misinformation on social media. They accused a member of the defence team of posting misleading versions of court proceedings online.
“I got a letter from the prosecution expressing concern about what is being posted online,” Agabi said. “I will apologise to the court, even though I know nothing about the posts.”
Awomolo confirmed the issue, adding:
“The case is sensitive. It is not fair to manipulate what happened in court in the public domain.”
Justice Omotosho issued a strong caution:
“This does not help either side. It only delays proceedings. Most of these things are gross misconduct on which you could be disbarred. I don’t want to mention any name. The person knows himself. Let us act well.”
Conclusion
As the legal battle over Nnamdi Kanu’s arrest continues, Wednesday’s proceedings have added new depth to the public understanding of the case. With the DSS distancing itself from the Kenya operation and courts having previously ruled the arrest unlawful, questions remain over who authorized and executed the move. As the defence prepares to present further evidence, all eyes remain on the Federal High Court in Abuja.
