Originally published June 18, 2025 | Editorially upgraded August 14, 2026
The terrorism trial of Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader Nnamdi Kanu entered a critical stage at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, as a Department of State Services (DSS) operative faced sustained cross-examination over evidence concerning a radio transmitter allegedly linked to Kanu, Radio Biafra broadcasts and claims of violence involving IPOB and its alleged armed wing, the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
The hearing was significant not simply because of the allegations made by the prosecution witness, but because the defence used cross-examination to probe the limits of the witness’s personal knowledge, the documentary trail surrounding the transmitter and the basis for linking particular acts of violence to Kanu.
The witness, identified in court reports as the fourth prosecution witness and protected from public identification for security reasons, told the court that between 170 and 200 security agents in the South-East had been killed as a result of activities attributed by investigators to IPOB and ESN. He also gave evidence concerning the alleged importation and use of a radio transmitter for Radio Biafra.
But under cross-examination by Kanu’s defence lawyer, Onyechi Ikpeazu, SAN, the witness acknowledged several limitations in his direct knowledge of important aspects of the prosecution’s narrative. Among other things, he said there was no record of the importation of the transmitter, could not state when it was brought into Nigeria and acknowledged that he had not personally witnessed Kanu’s 2016 arrest in Lagos.
The exchanges became an important part of a broader legal question at the centre of the case: whether the evidence placed before the court was sufficient to connect Kanu personally to the criminal acts alleged by the Federal Government.
What Happened in Court on June 18
The June 18 hearing was a continuation of the prosecution’s case against Kanu before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court in Abuja.
Rather than a new trial beginning on that date, the proceedings formed part of an ongoing prosecution that had already produced several witnesses and exhibits.
The fourth prosecution witness, a DSS official identified as DDD in court reports, continued his testimony before facing cross-examination from Kanu’s defence team.
The prosecution’s evidence focused substantially on a radio transmitter allegedly recovered from a property in Ubuluisiuzor, Anambra State, and said to have been associated with Radio Biafra.
According to the witness, the DSS located the transmitter after analysing a video showing Kanu inspecting the equipment. The security agency subsequently recovered the equipment and transported it to its headquarters in Abuja. The witness also testified that the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) inspected the equipment after it was recovered.
The prosecution’s case was that the transmitter had been brought into Nigeria without the required regulatory approval and was connected to Kanu’s broadcasting activities.
The witness told the court that the NBC did not issue Kanu a licence to import the transmitter. He also said investigators concluded that Kanu was its owner and that Kanu had inspected the equipment after it arrived in Nigeria.
Earlier proceedings had seen the prosecution tender evidence relating to the transmitter, including an NBC report. The court had also admitted recordings and other materials that the prosecution said were connected to Kanu’s broadcasts.
The significance of the transmitter evidence was therefore not simply technical. Prosecutors were attempting to establish a chain connecting Kanu to Radio Biafra, his broadcasts and the wider allegations contained in the terrorism charges.
Defence Tests the Evidence Behind the Radio Biafra Allegations
The most consequential part of the June 18 proceedings came during cross-examination.
Ikpeazu challenged the witness on the documentary foundation of the prosecution’s claims concerning the transmitter.
When asked about records showing how the equipment entered Nigeria, the DSS official acknowledged that there was no record of its importation. He also said he could not establish when the transmitter was brought into the country.
That admission did not by itself determine the legal fate of the prosecution’s case. However, it provided the defence with an opportunity to question how investigators had established the equipment’s history and its alleged connection to Kanu.
The witness maintained that investigators had located the transmitter through analysis of a video showing Kanu inspecting it.
He also said the container in which the equipment was found had been brought into Nigeria by a man identified as Igwe Anyiba, who investigators later discovered was living outside the country.
The defence further questioned the witness about customs and clearing arrangements, including references to Benka Clearing and Forwarding and Chief Isaac Maduka.
The witness said he had not encountered those names during his investigation and was not aware of the claim that Benka had cleared the transmitter.
The exchange illustrated a recurring feature of criminal trials involving intelligence evidence: a witness may testify about what investigators concluded while the defence attempts to distinguish between information personally observed by the witness and information obtained from other sources.
That distinction became particularly relevant when the witness was questioned about events surrounding Kanu’s earlier arrest.
Witness Admits He Was Not Present at Kanu’s 2016 Arrest
The defence also questioned the witness about Kanu’s arrest in Lagos in 2016.
The DSS official told the court that Kanu had been arrested with broadcasting equipment at the time.
However, when pressed on the circumstances of that arrest, the witness acknowledged that he was not personally present. His knowledge of the arrest, he said, came from information relayed to him.
This distinction is important in assessing courtroom testimony.
A witness repeating information supplied by another person is not necessarily giving false evidence. But the evidentiary weight of such testimony can become a matter of intense cross-examination, particularly when the witness is being asked to establish facts he did not personally observe.
The defence was therefore able to test not only the substance of the allegations but also the source of the witness’s knowledge.
That does not mean the witness’s entire testimony was discredited. Rather, it exposed areas where the defence could argue that the witness’s evidence depended on investigative reports, information supplied by other officers or materials gathered during the investigation rather than direct personal observation.
The Two Guns Were Not Found Inside the Transmitter Container
Another point that emerged under cross-examination concerned two firearms mentioned during the prosecution’s evidence.
The witness clarified that the guns were not recovered from the container in which the transmitter was found.
Instead, according to his testimony, they were recovered under a mattress at the premises occupied by Benjamin Madubugu, who lived on the property. The witness said Madubugu was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of firearms.
The distinction matters because the prosecution’s evidence concerning the transmitter and the firearms involved separate circumstances.
A careful account of the proceedings therefore cannot state that the guns were found inside the transmitter container or imply that the weapons were recovered directly from Kanu.
The June 18 testimony did not establish such a fact.
Prosecution Presents Allegations of Attacks and Killings
While the defence concentrated on evidentiary gaps surrounding the transmitter and the witness’s personal knowledge, the prosecution used the same witness to present a broader narrative concerning violence in the South-East.
The witness told the court that between 170 and 200 security agents had been killed in the region in connection with activities attributed to IPOB and ESN.
He also testified about the killing of Ahmed Gulak, a former political aide to ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, who was killed in Owerri, Imo State, on May 30, 2021.
According to the witness, he served in Imo State between 2019 and 2023 and was involved in investigations relating to security incidents in the state.
He told the court that Gulak’s body was evacuated from the location where he was killed using the witness’s vehicle.
The prosecution also presented allegations concerning an ESN member identified as Uzuoma Benjamin, also known as Onye Army.
According to the prosecution witness, investigators received information that Onye Army had spoken about receiving directives from Kanu to attack security agents.
The witness further referred to allegations concerning the burial of an ESN commander known as Ikonso and claims involving human heads.
These were prosecution allegations presented in court, not findings by the court that Kanu had committed the acts described.
That distinction is essential.
The June 18 hearing was still part of the evidentiary phase of the prosecution’s case. The judge had not, at that point, determined that the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The Owerri Prison Attack and the Question of Attribution
The witness also linked Kanu’s broadcasts to the 2021 attack on the correctional facility in Owerri.
According to the prosecution’s account, investigators believed that Kanu’s broadcasts encouraged followers to attack government security institutions.
The prosecution sought to use this evidence to establish a connection between Kanu’s public communications and subsequent acts of violence.
It would be inaccurate to describe the June 18 hearing as a complete collapse of the prosecution’s case.
But establishing a legal connection between a broadcast and a specific criminal act requires more than demonstrating that the broadcast existed.
The prosecution must ultimately establish the elements of the offences charged and satisfy the applicable evidentiary standard.
That was one of the broader issues running through the defence’s cross-examination.
The defence’s strategy was not necessarily to dispute every event described by the witness. Instead, it sought to test whether the evidence sufficiently connected Kanu personally to the acts being attributed to IPOB or ESN members.
Newspaper Evidence Comes Under Scrutiny
The prosecution’s reliance on media material was another important aspect of the June proceedings.
The witness referred to publications in the Vanguard newspaper concerning an alleged ESN commander and the activities of the group.
Earlier in the proceedings, the prosecution had also tendered other documentary and broadcast evidence relating to Kanu.
The use of newspaper material in a criminal prosecution does not automatically determine whether the underlying allegation is true. Its admissibility and evidentiary value are separate questions.
The defence therefore had an incentive to challenge the reliability and foundation of information contained in such reports.
This distinction is particularly important in a case as politically sensitive as Kanu’s.
A newspaper report can document that an allegation was made. It does not, without more, establish that the allegation itself is true.
That principle is central to responsible reporting of court proceedings.
What the June 18 Cross-Examination Actually Established
The prosecution did present substantial allegations and documentary material through its witness.
At the same time, the defence exposed several limitations in the witness’s evidence.
The witness acknowledged that there was no record of the transmitter’s importation and that he could not say when it entered Nigeria. He acknowledged that he was not personally present during Kanu’s 2016 arrest and that his knowledge of that event was based on information relayed to him. He also clarified that the firearms referred to in his testimony were found under a mattress at the premises and not inside the transmitter container.
Those admissions were significant because they allowed the defence to argue that some aspects of the prosecution’s narrative rested on indirect evidence or incomplete documentation.
But they did not amount to a judicial finding that the prosecution had failed.
The court itself did not announce on June 18 that the witness had been discredited or that the government’s case had collapsed.
The witness was discharged after cross-examination, and Justice Omotosho adjourned proceedings until Thursday, June 19, when the prosecution was expected to call its fifth witness.
June 19: The Prosecution Calls Its Fifth Witness
The significance of the June 18 hearing became clearer the following day.
On Thursday, June 19, the Federal Government called its fifth prosecution witness, identified as EEE for security reasons.
The witness was a DSS officer who testified about investigations into violence associated with the 2020 #EndSARS protests and their aftermath.
According to Channels Television, the witness told the court that a report compiled by the security agency recorded the deaths of 128 police officers, 37 army personnel and 10 DSS officers, as well as the destruction of 164 police stations and 19 INEC facilities.
Other contemporary reports gave different aggregate figures, with The Nation reporting a prosecution allegation that 233 security agents were killed.
The difference between figures reported from the witness’s evidence underscores why such numbers should be attributed carefully.
They were figures presented through prosecution evidence concerning a DSS report. They should not be presented as an independently established judicial finding unless the court subsequently determines their accuracy.
Defence Challenges the #EndSARS Evidence
The fifth witness’s testimony also came under cross-examination.
Channels Television reported that the witness acknowledged he was not directly involved in investigating crimes allegedly committed by Kanu. He also acknowledged that he was not aware of the Lagos State judicial panel of inquiry into the #EndSARS protests and that the panel had not implicated IPOB in the manner suggested by the prosecution’s evidence.
Punch similarly reported that the defence questioned the basis of the DSS report and its alleged connection between Kanu and the violence associated with the protests.
The exchange was important because the prosecution was attempting to place Kanu’s broadcasts within a broader narrative of violence and instability.
The defence, meanwhile, sought to distinguish between the existence of violence during the #EndSARS period and proof that Kanu was criminally responsible for particular acts committed during that period.
Again, those are fundamentally different propositions.
Federal Government Closes Its Case
The most important development in the June 18–20 sequence came on June 19, when the Federal Government formally closed its case after the fifth prosecution witness completed testimony and cross-examination.
Prosecuting counsel Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, informed the Federal High Court that the government would call no further witnesses.
The prosecution had called five witnesses and tendered a range of exhibits during its case. Awomolo said the evidence presented was sufficient for the government to close its case.
The defence then indicated that Kanu would file a no-case submission.
A no-case submission is not an acquittal.
It is an application asking the court to determine that the prosecution has failed to establish a sufficient case requiring the defendant to enter a defence.
That distinction is important because the filing of such an application does not mean that the court has accepted the defence’s position.
Justice Omotosho granted the parties time to file their written submissions and adjourned the matter to July 18, 2025, for adoption of the written addresses.
What the June 18–19 Hearings Meant for Kanu’s Case
Taken together, the proceedings represented a transition in the trial.
For the Federal Government, the conclusion of the prosecution case meant that it had placed its witnesses and exhibits before the court and was prepared to defend the sufficiency of that evidence.
For Kanu’s defence, the end of the prosecution’s case provided an opportunity to argue that the evidence did not establish a sufficient case requiring him to defend himself.
The defence’s cross-examination on June 18 had already identified weaknesses or limitations in some parts of the evidence, particularly concerning the transmitter’s importation history, the witness’s personal knowledge and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of firearms.
But the prosecution also placed substantial allegations before the court, including claims concerning Kanu’s broadcasts, Radio Biafra, IPOB and ESN activities, attacks on security institutions and the deaths of security personnel.
The legal question was therefore not whether the prosecution had made allegations.
It clearly had.
The question was whether the evidence, viewed according to the applicable legal standard, was sufficient to require Kanu to answer the charges.
Why the “Witness Stumbled” Narrative Goes Too Far
The original version of this report described the prosecution witness as having “stumbled under cross-examination.”
That wording has been removed in this upgraded version.
The phrase suggests that the witness’s testimony was effectively destroyed during questioning.
The contemporaneous court reports do not support such a categorical conclusion.
What the record shows is more nuanced.
The defence succeeded in obtaining admissions concerning the limits of the witness’s personal knowledge and the absence of certain documentary records. Those points could be used by defence counsel to challenge the reliability, completeness or weight of parts of the prosecution’s evidence.
At the same time, the witness continued to give evidence supporting the prosecution’s allegations and was discharged after the cross-examination.
A professional court report should therefore describe the witness as having faced detailed or sustained cross-examination, rather than claiming that he “collapsed,” “failed” or “stumbled” unless the court record itself supports such language.
That distinction is particularly important when reporting on a criminal defendant who is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.
Why the U.S. Officials Claim Has Been Removed
The earlier version of this article also stated that U.S. Embassy officials were present in court to observe the proceedings.
A June 18 YouTube report made that claim, describing American officials as among observers in the courtroom. However, the stronger contemporaneous court reports reviewed for this editorial upgrade did not independently establish the identity or official status of such observers.
For that reason, the claim has been removed from the headline and substantive narrative.
That does not establish that no American observer was present.
It means only that SaharaNews247 should not present the claim as a confirmed diplomatic fact without sufficiently reliable independent verification.
This is especially important because the presence of foreign diplomatic officials at a politically sensitive terrorism trial carries an obvious implication of international scrutiny.
If such attendance is independently confirmed through an official U.S. Embassy statement, a named diplomatic source or direct photographic or eyewitness evidence from a SaharaNews247 reporter, it could be reported separately.
Until then, it is safer to leave the claim out.
The Broader Legal and Political Context
Kanu’s trial has attracted intense attention because it sits at the intersection of criminal law, national security, separatist politics, freedom of expression and longstanding grievances in Nigeria’s South-East.
IPOB advocates the creation of an independent Biafran state, while the Nigerian government has consistently treated the organisation as a security threat and has proscribed it.
Kanu has denied the allegations against him and his defence has repeatedly challenged the prosecution’s case.
The case has also generated international attention because Kanu is a British citizen and because of the circumstances surrounding his return to Nigeria from Kenya in 2021.
However, those broader political and international controversies should not be allowed to obscure the specific evidentiary questions being decided by the trial court.
The June 18 hearing was fundamentally about evidence.
It was about what the witness personally knew, what investigators documented, what materials had been recovered and how the prosecution sought to connect those materials and events to Kanu.
The Kenya Rendition Dispute Remains a Separate Legal Issue
The circumstances surrounding Kanu’s return to Nigeria in 2021 remain an important part of the history of the case.
Kanu’s lawyers have argued that his removal from Kenya violated his rights and amounted to extraordinary rendition.
Nigeria’s Supreme Court subsequently ruled in December 2023 that the lower court’s decision that had discharged Kanu did not end the government’s ability to continue the prosecution. The Supreme Court ordered that the trial continue, even though the court also addressed violations of Kanu’s rights during the circumstances of his rendition.
That history is important background.
But it should not be confused with the evidence presented during the June 2025 prosecution case.
The question of how Kanu was brought back to Nigeria and the question of whether the prosecution proved the charges are related aspects of the broader litigation but remain legally distinguishable issues.
What Happened by the End of June 20
By the end of the June 18–20 hearing sequence, the prosecution had closed its case.
The fifth witness had been heard and cross-examined, and the defence had indicated that it would pursue a no-case submission rather than immediately begin presenting its defence. The court granted the parties time to prepare their written arguments and fixed July 18, 2025, for adoption.
Vanguard reported on June 20 that Kanu’s defence maintained that he had no case to answer after the Federal Government concluded its evidence.
This development made the June 18 cross-examination more significant, but it did not mean the defence had already won.
The next decisive stage was for the court to determine whether the prosecution evidence crossed the threshold necessary to require Kanu to enter a defence.
A Trial Defined by Competing Narratives
The June 18–19 proceedings demonstrated why Kanu’s case remains one of Nigeria’s most closely watched criminal trials.
The prosecution presented a narrative in which Kanu’s broadcasts and alleged connections to IPOB and ESN formed part of a broader pattern of violence and attacks on state institutions.
The defence sought to break that narrative into individual evidentiary questions.
Was the transmitter’s importation properly documented?
What was the witness’s personal knowledge?
Who actually committed particular acts of violence?
What evidence directly connected Kanu to those acts?
Could information contained in investigative reports and newspaper publications establish the criminal allegations against him?
Those questions are ultimately for the court to resolve.
The June 18 hearing therefore should not be portrayed as a simple victory for either side.
It was a detailed examination of the evidentiary foundation of a prosecution that would close the following day.
What the Proceedings Mean for Nigeria’s Justice System
The wider significance of the trial extends beyond Kanu himself.
Because the case involves allegations concerning terrorism, separatist agitation, broadcasting, political expression and national security, the proceedings are being watched closely by Nigerians and international observers interested in the country’s commitment to due process.
The quality of the evidence, the conduct of the prosecution and defence, the protection of the defendant’s rights and the reasoning of the court all contribute to public confidence in the eventual outcome.
For Nigeria, that confidence matters.
A terrorism trial involving a prominent separatist leader cannot be assessed solely by whether the defendant is eventually convicted or acquitted.
The credibility of the process matters as well.
A conviction must rest on evidence and law. An acquittal, if it occurs, must equally be understood as the consequence of the prosecution’s failure to meet the required legal standard rather than proof that every underlying allegation was necessarily false.
That is why accurate reporting of individual courtroom exchanges is so important.
The Road Ahead
The immediate legal consequence of the June 18–19 proceedings was the transition from the prosecution’s evidence to the defence’s no-case submission.
The Federal Government had called five witnesses and closed its case. Kanu’s legal team indicated that it would ask the court to find that the prosecution had not established a sufficient case requiring him to enter a defence.
The Federal High Court consequently moved toward consideration of written legal arguments.
The June 18 cross-examination therefore became one part of a much larger legal process.
The defence could point to the witness’s admissions concerning the transmitter, his lack of personal knowledge of Kanu’s 2016 arrest and the circumstances surrounding the firearms.
The prosecution, on the other hand, could point to the totality of its evidence, including testimony concerning Radio Biafra, broadcasts, alleged IPOB and ESN activities, attacks on security institutions and the DSS reports concerning the #EndSARS period.
The court’s task was to evaluate that evidence according to law rather than political pressure.
Conclusion
The June 18, 2025 hearing in Nnamdi Kanu’s terrorism trial was a significant day of evidence and cross-examination, but it was not the courtroom collapse suggested by some descriptions of the proceedings.
The DSS witness faced sustained questioning and acknowledged important limitations in his knowledge and in the documentary trail surrounding the radio transmitter. He confirmed that there was no record of the transmitter’s importation, could not say when it entered Nigeria and acknowledged that he had not personally witnessed Kanu’s 2016 arrest.
The defence also established that the two firearms mentioned by the witness were not recovered from the container holding the transmitter but from under a mattress at the premises where the equipment was found.
At the same time, the witness provided extensive testimony supporting the prosecution’s allegations concerning Radio Biafra, IPOB, ESN and violence against security personnel.
The following day, the Federal Government called its fifth and final witness before closing its case. Kanu’s defence responded by indicating that it would file a no-case submission, putting the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence directly before the trial court.
The June 18–19 proceedings therefore represented a pivotal transition in the case.
They did not establish Kanu’s guilt.
They did not establish that the prosecution’s case had collapsed.
They demonstrated instead the central function of a criminal trial: competing claims must be tested against evidence, witnesses must withstand cross-examination, and the court must ultimately determine whether the prosecution has proved the case according to the law.
For a case as politically charged as Kanu’s, that distinction is essential.
The story is not simply about what the prosecution alleges or what the defence disputes. It is about whether the evidence placed before the court can withstand scrutiny and satisfy the legal burden required for a criminal conviction.
That is the question that ultimately matters.
Author Bio
Smart Chuks is a Nigerian journalist, publisher and digital media analyst covering politics, security, judicial affairs and public policy. He is the publisher of SaharaNews247 and writes long-form reports and analysis on governance, national security, human rights and major legal and political developments in Nigeria.
