The Federal Government on Thursday closed its case in the ongoing terrorism trial of Nnamdi Kanu, the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), after presenting its fifth and final witness before the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Lead prosecuting counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo (SAN), announced the closure after the final prosecution witness, identified as “EEE” for security reasons, completed his cross-examination by Kanu’s defence team.
“We are satisfied with the evidence tendered before the court. We hereby close the prosecution’s case,” Awomolo told the court.
Defence counsel, Chief Kanu Agabi (SAN), in response, informed the court that the legal team would file a no-case submission, arguing that the evidence presented by the prosecution does not warrant the defendant to enter a defence. The application, he noted, would be filed at a later date.
Earlier, the fifth prosecution witness, an officer of the Department of State Services (DSS), testified that he led a team to assess destruction during the 2020–2021 End SARS protests, including damage to public property and deaths of security personnel.
He confirmed three sets of documents, which were tendered and admitted as Exhibits PWD2, PWD2A, and PWD2B. The documents reported that:
- 128 police officers,
- 37 soldiers,
- 10 DSS operatives were killed during the protests. Additionally, 164 police stations and 19 INEC facilities were destroyed across several states.
During cross-examination, Kanu’s counsel, Onyechi Ikpeazu (SAN), challenged the relevance of the evidence to the charges against Kanu. The witness admitted that he did not investigate any direct crimes allegedly committed by Kanu, but linked his broadcasts to public unrest.
Ikpeazu pressed the witness on the claim that Kanu incited nationwide violence through his speeches: Ikpeazu: “Are you saying the End SARS protests in Lagos and Osun were because Kanu told people to protest?”
EEE: “My mandate was to investigate fallout from End SARS and assess Kanu’s role in inciting violence.”
Ikpeazu also queried the DSS officer on whether End SARS was exclusively a Biafran issue and questioned the inclusion of prominent figures like Aisha Yesufu in protest narratives. The witness acknowledged hearing of her but admitted he had not investigated her role.
Referencing the documents, Ikpeazu highlighted inconsistencies:
- One section stated “no life was lost in Ekiti State” despite being part of a report on Osun.
- The main document, spanning pages 1–668, addressed End SARS-related destruction, while from page 669, the focus shifted to IPOB/ESN activities—an abrupt transition the witness could not explain.
The defence argued that this raised questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s claims and the admissibility of its evidence in proving terrorism charges specifically linked to Kanu.
The court is expected to rule on the defence’s no-case submission once it is formally filed, a decision that could determine whether Kanu will be required to open his defence or be discharged.
