By John Umeh
A Federal High Court in Abuja has admitted into evidence a controversial report by the Department of State Services (DSS) that links Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), to acts of violence during the #EndSARS protests of 2020. The court’s decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal proceedings against Kanu, who is facing multiple charges related to terrorism, incitement, and national security threats.
The DSS report, which had been submitted earlier as part of the prosecution’s evidence, was formally accepted by the court after a contentious hearing on its admissibility. The document alleges that Kanu and key members of IPOB used the widespread unrest during the #EndSARS demonstrations as a cover to escalate violent attacks on public institutions, security forces, and private property, especially across the southeastern region of Nigeria.
DSS Makes Explosive Claims
According to the DSS, intercepted communications and intelligence reports suggest that Kanu directed IPOB members to infiltrate the protests and exploit the chaos to further the group’s separatist agenda. The report claims that violent incidents—including the burning of police stations, attacks on correctional facilities, and road blockades—were not merely spontaneous outbursts, but part of a “coordinated destabilization effort” allegedly backed by Kanu.
In court, DSS legal representatives argued that the report is critical to establishing a pattern of Kanu’s rhetoric and alleged orchestration of unrest. “The defendant was not merely commenting on the #EndSARS movement; he was allegedly weaponizing it to incite attacks on the Nigerian state,” the prosecution said.
Kanu’s Legal Team Objects
However, Kanu’s defense team vehemently objected to the report’s inclusion, describing it as “baseless, politically motivated, and designed to smear” their client. Lead counsel, Ifeanyi Ejiofor, maintained that the DSS report lacks credibility, citing the absence of verifiable evidence directly linking Kanu to the incidents. Ejiofor insisted that his client was not even present in Nigeria during the period the violence occurred.
“The DSS report is riddled with assumptions and intelligence that has not been independently verified,” Ejiofor told the court. “This is a clear attempt to reframe legitimate political dissent as criminality.”
Despite these objections, the presiding judge ruled that the report met the threshold for admissibility at this stage of the trial, noting that its veracity would be tested during cross-examination and through further judicial scrutiny.
Public Reaction and Political Undertones
The court’s acceptance of the DSS report has already sparked strong reactions from IPOB supporters and civil rights advocates, some of whom see it as an effort to criminalize the #EndSARS movement by association. IPOB issued a statement condemning the development, calling it “a desperate move by the government to silence dissent and rewrite history.”
Conversely, government supporters and some political observers argue that the inclusion of the report is a legitimate step in uncovering the broader networks behind the violence that erupted during the protests. “For too long, some individuals have hidden behind populist movements to advance separatist or violent agendas,” a senior APC official said anonymously.
What’s Next?
The court has scheduled the next hearing for later this month, during which witnesses may be called to testify on the contents of the DSS report. Legal analysts expect more heated exchanges between the prosecution and defense, as the case against Kanu continues to evolve.
As the trial proceeds, the admissibility of the DSS report adds another layer of complexity to the already sensitive case—blending issues of national security, civil protest, and political identity in a courtroom that continues to attract national and international attention.
