Unknown witness brought by the Federal Government of Nigeria to Federal High Court sitting in Abuja on Tuesday over the case involving Biafra Republic agitator, Nnamdi Kanu has testified before the court that the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB leader was the founder of the Eastern Security Network, ESN, an IPOB acclaimed vigilante security network established to fight against terrorists that were advancing from Northern part of Nigeria and building camps in some parts of Southeast states, although, the unknown witness who was fully masked and personal details kept secret, introduced himself as a personnel of the Department of State Services, DSS who was  among the detectives that interrogated the detained IPOB Leader, but the IPOB Leader, Nnamdi Kanu in a swift reaction said the witness is unknown, denying ever meeting such a person, the Defense lawyer raised a point of observation during cross examination that the issue raised by the unknown witness has been deliberated and struck out by the previous Judge .

Prosecution Lawyer, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, on Tuesday called its second witness to testify. The witness claimed that Kanu incited violence and established the Eastern Security Network ESN, allegedly as an armed wing of IPOB.

According to Punch Newspaper, the  Federal High Court on Tuesday during the continuation of the trial banned Favour Kanu, the wife of Prince Fineboy Kanu, the younger brother of the leader of the detained Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, “from attending the next three court sessions after she streamed the proceedings live on her Facebook page.

Justice James Omotosho issued the order on Tuesday after Favour admitted to live-streaming the session and apologised.

The judge said her action could have amounted to contempt of court.

Even though her husband’s lawyer, Chief Kanu Agabi, also begged the court for forgiveness, Justice Omotosho maintained that she must be barred for three sittings.

The judge expressed disbelief that she still went ahead to post the video online despite her phone being seized during a previous court date for a similar offence.

“I want to hear from her. Were you not the one who took your phone?” the judge asked. “I did not give the order to forfeit that phone. I don’t know if she might be a wife to my brother (Nnamdi Kanu),” he added.

Prince Fineboy Kanu replied, “She is my wife.”

Justice Omotosho warned that no one should take actions that could delay the trial, assuring that justice would be done.

During the proceeding, the federal government’s second prosecution witness told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Kanu is also the founder of the Eastern Security Network.

The witness code-named BBB stated under examination by the federal government’s lead counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, in the open court presided over by Justice James Omotosho.

Recall that at the commencement of the trial, Awomolo had asked the court that the identities of the witnesses be concealed from the public and protected for security reasons.

He stated the charges against Kanu bothers on a serious offence of terrorism, hence, the need to protect the witnesses.

In a short ruling, Justice Omotosho granted the prosecution counsel’s request.

Kanu, who was initially facing a 15-count charge of terrorism and treason brought against him by the Attorney General of the Federation, got it downsized to 7 after the trial court struck out eight of the charges on April 8, 2022, for lacking substance.

At the resumed trial on Tuesday, BBB told the court that he was assigned by the Attorney General of the Federation to investigate Kanu.

Speaking further, he said from the findings of his investigation, “the defendant is the operator of Radio Biafra and the founder of the Eastern Security Network”.

Meanwhile, efforts by Awomolo to tender a letter authorising the witness to investigate the defendant were opposed by the defence lead counsel, Kanu Agabi.

Agabi objected to the tendering of the document because they had not been served.

The prosecution afterwards withdrew the document, and the court granted the withdrawal.

Likewise, Agabi also opposed the admissibility of a video evidence tendered by the Awomolo, citing same reasons that they have not been served.

The IPOB leader supported the submission of his counsel. The court ordered that all materials intended for trial must be served in advance and listed properly.

Justice Omotosho emphasised that no document would be admitted unless previously disclosed to the defence.

The prosecution informed the court that it had filed a motion for the release of certain evidence already tendered as exhibits—specifically, items numbered 1 to 28 and 30 to 39.

The court, in its response, directed that the motion must be refiled, with each exhibit explicitly identified and properly referenced.

Earlier, under re-examination by Awomolo, the prosecution witness code code-named AAA, stated that in his understanding of agitation in the context of the defendant, Kanu’s actions are driven by secessionist agitation, as he believes that the defendant was pushing for the secession of some parts of Nigeria.

Under cross-examination of AAA, by Agabi, the witness was questioned on his awareness of the charges brought against Kanu and previous rulings which the witness admitted to knowing little about the details of the 15-count charge, including several that had reportedly been struck out by the court.

The witness acknowledged awareness of IPOB’s role in enforcing Monday sit-at-home orders, which Agabi responded was among the charges that had been dismissed.

Agabi repeatedly highlighted that several serious terrorism-related allegations, including disruption of elections and attacks on federal property, were part of the struck-out charges, a point the witness said he was unaware of.

Awomolo, on his part, had also cited concerns about a motion served on his team for the release of certain exhibits tendered in court. He noted that the prosecution objected only to the release of non-perishable items.

Meanwhile, shortly after the commencement of the day’s proceedings, a mild drama over legal representation ensued.

Justice Omotosho informed the open court that he received a protest letter from one Charles Udeh, claiming to be part of the legal representation for the trial.

However, the legal team of the defendant denied knowledge of Ude, a stance Kanu himself affirmed, insisting Agabi is his counsel.

Following the response of the defence to the situation, Justice Omotosho addressed the issue of the defence team being overcrowded.

He proceeded to note that only the approved amount of counsel can be allowed on the defence team.

Justice Omotosho said: “I approved 16 counsels for the defendants, and I have 29, I won’t take it. “It is very important we move on without hitches.”

Citing the small courtroom and recalling a previous agreement, he threatened to move the proceedings online if decorum was not maintained. “I don’t want to be pushed to take the case virtually; we have the facility,” the judge warned”, the Punch Newspaper report ends in quote.

Meanwhile, the organising lawyer for Nnamdi Kanu legal team, Aloy Ejimakor had stated after the previous court sitting that “a decision has been made by the Legal Team of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu that, from now onwards, there will be no further press briefings on the “facts” of the case, except on peripheral facts that are not subjudice. This decision was also conveyed to the Judge in open court.

We had reported that one of the witnesses called by the Federal Government of Nigeria to testify against the Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, over the alleged act of terrorism, secretly gave his testimony on Tuesday before the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja, with the coordinating lawyer to Nnamdi Kanu, Barrister Aloy Ejimakor, saying, the FG witness was only identified merely by initials and the person gave his testimony against Nnamdi Kanu behind the screen, following the application filed by the Federal Government lawyers as approved by the trial Judge to keep the identities of the FG witnesses secret, this, Aloy Ejimakor tweeted while the court proceeding was ongoing, that, the Federal Government only has three Senior Advocates of Nigeria, SAN, that, six SAN have stood firmly behind the detained Biafra Leader. 

We had reported that Justice James Omotosho, the new judge that took over the case of the detained Biafra agitation leader, Nnamdi Kanu has accepted the apology tendered by Nnamdi Kanu through one of his lawyers, Barrister Kanu Agabi, a Cross River State born former Senator in the Nigeria National Assembly and two time Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice under the then President Olusegun Obasanjo, over the detained Biafra leader’s outburst or manner he protested sequel to his rejection of the former Judge, Justice Binta Nyako, when the case started afresh on Friday with the new judge which Nnamdi Kanu pleaded not guilty to the seven counts terrorism charges filed against him by the Federal Government.

We had reported that the detained Biafra Republic agitation leader, Nnamdi Kanu has not been released by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, Nigeria National Judicial Council, NJC says in reaction to viral rumours that the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB leader has been set free by the CJN on the ground that Nigeria courts under her leadership have no jurisdiction over the freedom fighter’s case due to the way and manner he was forcefully extradited from Kenya to Nigeria in 2021.

We had reported that the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu on Valentine’s day send a message to the lovers, supporters of the Biafra Republic agitation and the general public that he would remain in detention until impartial and unbiased judge takeover the case of alleged terrorism filed against him by the Federal Government of Nigeria, narrating how the judiciary has been biased against him since years of his detention.

We had reported that Justice Binta Nyako of Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned indefinitely after the detained leader of Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu as seen in a privileged video footage during February 10, 2025 court session, staged a resistance protest, insisting while confronting the judge face to face including the prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo that Justice Binta who is an indigene of Katsina State, same state with former President Muhammadu Buhari is biased, saying, Justice Nyako who had held a political position of Katsina State Attorney General and Commissioner of Justice that her court is not a court of law but a shrine of injustice, accusing the judge of poke nosing with authorities to pass wrong judgement against him inorder to be left off the hook by the Federal Government, her son, Abdul-Aziz Nyako and her husband, retired Vice Admiral Murtala Nyako who was once Chief of Naval Staff, Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, pioneer former military Governor of Niger State, two times Governor of Adamawa State who were impeached twice by Adamawa State House of Assembly for misconduct, one of the soldiers that fought against Biafra during Nigeria civil war, a current member of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC who is facing corruption charges alongside his son in a criminal allegation filed before court of law since 2015 by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC over alleged cases of abuse of office, criminal conspiracy, theft and money laundering.

We had October, 2024 reported that the Chief Judge of Federal High Court in Nigeria, Justice John Terhemba Tsoho has rejected the verbal plea by the detained Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB leader, Nnamdi Kanu for the trial judge in the case, Justice Binta Nyako to withdraw being the judge over the lawsuits.

Justice Tsoho stated that Kanu’s case was reassigned to Justice Nyako due to its prolonged nature, dating back to 2015. Given that Justice Nyako had handled the case for the most part, she was deemed the most suitable judge to see it through to its conclusion.

However, the Chief Judge directed that if at the next hearing of the case, Kanu still insists on recusing Justice Nyako, he must file a written motion with an affidavit, stating all the grounds for requesting the recusal.

We had reported in September 2024 that Justice Binta Nyako of Federal High Court sitting in Abuja have withdrawn from the case of  detained Biafra Leader, Nnamdi Kanu after the trial could not commence following the Biafra Leader’s personal confrontation with the judge for the second time in the year.

We had reported in May 2024 that, in a rare case in the history of legal proceedings in the world, Nnamdi Kanu, the detained Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB helped himself at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja and played the role of a lawyer with full energy and vibrant command of words with fearless loud voice defended himself  with face to face confrontation with the trial judge, Justice Binta Nyako and the Federal Government Prosecution counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo.

Kanu is being prosecuted by the Federal Government on a seven-count bordering on terrorism.