Excerpts From Nnamdi Kanu’s Trial Today As Court Adjourns To May 21 & 22, 2025 – Shocking Cross-Examination Exposes Gaps in Investigation and DSS Detention Abuse.

 

Mazi Nnamdi Kanu appeared before Justice Omotosho today, Tuesday, May 14, 2025, at the Federal High Court in Abuja as the resumed trial took a dramatic turn.

The courtroom proceedings featured strong cross-examination led by Kanu’s lawyer, Chief Mike Agabi (SAN), and a series of revealing answers from Witness No. 2, whose testimony shed light on questionable practices during the investigation and detention of the IPOB leader.

Taste the Goodness: EL Blends All-Natural Cold-Pressed Juices

 

Court Proceedings Summary:

MNK arrived at the Federal High Court, Abuja, around 9:00 am.

The court session commenced, with Witness No. 2 called to testify.

The prosecution was allowed to ask one final question before the defense took over.

The witness submitted a medical/autopsy report on Ahmed Gulak, which was accepted by the court as evidence and read in open court.

 

Few Cross-Examination (Q&A):

Agabi (SAN):
Q: You obtained a video statement from my client?
A: Yes.

Q: In that video, only the defendant and his lawyers were visible?
A: Yes.

Q: The video was incomplete. We did not see those who conducted the interview.
A: Yes.

Q: Were you masked during the interview?
A: No.

Q: How long was the defendant in detention before the video was made?
A: I don’t know.

Q: He was kept in the cell for so long before the interview, correct?
A: I don’t know.

 

Q: Are you aware that solitary confinement takes a toll on the mind?
A: I don’t know.

Q: The reason you kept him in solitary confinement was because you considered him a danger to himself or the public?
A: (Hesitates, gives unclear response)
Q: I repeat: was that why he was kept in solitary confinement?
A: I don’t know he was in solitary confinement.

Q: You subjected him to solitary confinement?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Are you aware a suspect should not be kept in solitary confinement for more than 24 hours?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Was this prolonged detention backed by a court order?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Are you aware that his long detention caused frustration and anger?
A: I’m not aware.

Q: Do you know he has been detained for four years after that interview?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Do you know when he was arrested?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Do you know when he was interviewed?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Were you part of the investigation?
A: No.

 

Q: Are you aware of the previous charges against him?
A: I don’t know.

Q: The charges were amended, right?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Following the amendment, several charges were dropped, correct?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Are you aware that only 3 charges were eventually linked to the defendant?
A: I don’t know.

Q: Do you know the charges were amended six days after his arrest?
A: I’m not aware.

Q: Your evidence is based solely on what you know, yes?
A: Yes.

 

Q: Are you aware this charge has been pending in court for 10 years?
A: I’m not aware.

Q: Was the defendant charged after investigations were concluded?
A: Yes.

Q: How many people did you get statements from in this case?
A: I can’t remember.

Q: Did you confront the defendant with any of those statements?
A: No.

Q: But you showed him a letter from the ex-Attorney General?
A: Yes.

Q: Did you bring the AG to the defendant, so he knows who accused him?
A: No.

Q: By the time you received that letter, had investigations already been concluded?
A: I don’t know, my Lord.

Q: In fact, charges had already been pending in court for 6 years by then?
A: I’m not aware, my Lord.

Q: So, it was from the letter that you became aware of this case?
A: Like I said, I’m not aware.

 

Q: What was the office’s response to the letter?
A: (No clear answer)

Q: Did you submit an investigation report?
A: Yes, I brought my report to the court.

Q: I put it to you that you did not conduct any investigation apart from acting on that AG’s letter.
A: We conducted investigations.

Q: Where are the investigation records?
A: (No definite answer)

Q: I put it to you that the charges remained unchanged even after the AG’s letter.
A: Charges were amended three times, but after the AG’s letter, I don’t know if they changed.

Q: The AG had already made conclusions before your so-called investigation?
A: (No definite response)

 

Final Notes:

Barrister Aloy Ejimakor informed the court that he and other defense lawyers were denied access to their client at the DSS facility just a few days ago.

 

Next Court Date:

The trial was adjourned to May 21st and 22nd, 2025, for continuation of hearing.

 

---

Favour Michael Kanu