Home » News » How Kanu’s broadcast led to murder of Jonathan’s ex-aide, Gulak — Witness
News

May 9, 2025

How Kanu’s broadcast led to murder of Jonathan’s ex-aide, Gulak — Witness

Kanu raises alarm, alleges tricks by FG to perpetually hold him down Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, IPOB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, has drawn attention to what he described as serial executive and judicial fraud being perpetrated against him since his extraordinary rendition in 2021. In an open letter addressed to Nigerians yesterday, Kanu said: ‘’In a judgment entered on March 1, 2017, the Federal High Court, Abuja, ruled that the ‘IPOB is not an unlawful group’. At the time, it received widespread publicity which can be verified. ‘’This landmark ruling (made by the court before it turned unjust) emanated in a criminal proceedings that required ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ and in which the federal government and my humble self presented our respective cases. ‘’Alas! Instead of the federal government to go on appeal as the law mandated (if they are dissatisfied with the judgment), the former Attorney-General (Abubakar Malami) went behind closed doors with a letter signed by late Abba Kyari and got IPOB proscribed/tagged a terrorist group in an ex parte proceedings that conducted without notice to me or to the IPOB. ‘’This abominable incident was the earliest sign yet that the government and its judiciary have struck an unholy and fraudulent alliance to deny me my rights and thereby imperil the life and liberty of millions who identity with IPOB. ‘’On October 26, 2022, a Federal High Court declared my extraordinary rendition and detention as unconstitutional, stating that: ‘the manner of arrest and detention of the Applicant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) in Kenya, his continued detention in Abuja, his subjection to physical and mental trauma by the Respondents, the inhuman and degrading treatment meted out to the Applicant amounts to a brazen violation of the Applicant’s fundamental right to dignity of his person and threat to life under Section 34 (1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).’ ‘’The court further ordered the federal government to apologize to me and pay me compensation. In a responsible society and well-ordered, run by a responsible government, this judgment is sufficient to have ended my lengthy detention and encourage the federal government to constructively engage me on the issue of the self-determination agitation that triggered this whole saga. ‘’Pedal back to October 13, 2022, when the Court of Appeal held that: ‘The courts must never shy away from calling the executive to order when they resort to acts of ‘executive lawlessness.’ ‘’The duty of the courts is to maintain a balance between ensuring that law and order is obeyed and the protection of the individual from oppressive actions by the executive. ‘’By the forcible abduction and extraordinary rendition of the Appellant (Mazi Nnamdi Kanu) from Kenya to this country on the 27th day of June 2021, in violation of international and state laws, the lower court or, indeed, any court in this country is divested of jurisdiction to entertain charges against the Appellant’. ‘’Despite the clarity of this judgment and its comportment with reason, the federal government refused to release me from detention while it went behind closed doors and connived with three other justices of the court of appeal who fraudulently and swiftly sat on appeal over the judgment and practically destroyed it by issuing what they termed ‘a stay of execution’. ‘’One may then ask: Is it not abominable for a court to stay a judgment the government already disobeyed? In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has held that anybody who disobeys a related court order cannot be given any judicial relief until such order is obeyed. ‘’This is a sound reasoning that applied to everybody but is fraudulently overlooked when it comes to my case. Fast forward to 15th December 2023 when the Supreme Court sent back my case to the Federal High Court for trial. ‘’For avoidance of doubt, that was not the only decision the Supreme Court made. It also decided that my bail should not have been revoked and it went on to state clearly that the judge exhibited significant and unacceptable bias by revoking my bail. ‘’In a sane society, one would expect that when the High court received my case from the Supreme Court and hankered down for trial, it was also duty-bound to restore my bail in line with the pronouncement of the apex court. ‘’But that did not happen. Why? Well, your guess is as good as mine and that is: the Court connived with the federal government to continue my detention in violation of Section 287 of the Nigerian Constitution. ‘’On September 24, 2024, I decided that I have had enough of taking my chances at getting justice from a judge that, in June 2021, sent me to secret police detention without fair hearing, later refused to transfer me to prison to better prepare for my trial and capped it all by refusing to restore my bail and instead ordering an accelerated trial in the face of the reality that I will never get a fair trial whilst detained at the DSS. ‘’These are the major reasons that compelled me to request recusal of the judge and having consented to it, she proceeded to make an order removing herself from my case. That order was never challenged on appeal; thus it remains extant to this day. ‘’But instead of the Chief judge of the Federal High Court to do the lawful thing by assigning my case to another judge, he connived with the federal government to eat crow and send my case to a judge that stands recused by a valid order. ‘’To conclude this open letter, let me make it clear that it should in no way be construed to mean that there are no decent judges in Nigeria that can be trusted to deliver even-handed justice in my case. That is not the issue. ‘’Instead, the issue is that my case is deliberately being shielded from judges and justices that are deemed to be committed to doing justice, even when it means that the federal government must lose. ‘’Be that as it may, if it will take the rest of my life in detention to produce me before a proper and impartial court, so be it. But let me say this for the world to know: I will not succumb to any trial conducted by any judge or court whose jurisdiction does not pass constitutional muster. Not now, not ever.’’

Nnamdi Kanu

By Ikechukwu Nnochiri

ABUJA—A witness in the on-going trial of the detained leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra, IPoB, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, yesterday, alleged that a media broadcast by the defendant was responsible for the killing of a former presidential aide, Mr Ahmed Gulak.

The witness, who is an operative of the Department of State Services, DSS, alleged that Gulak, who served ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, was murdered in Imo State on May 30, 2021, after Kanu, in a broadcast, ordered his followers to deal with anyone violating his sit-at-home directive.

Testifying before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the witness, who was codenamed PW- BBB, insisted that the broadcast incited violence and wanton killings in the South East region of the country.

Led in evidence by government lawyer, Chief Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, the witness who testified inside a protective screen, said  he participated in many investigations concerning Kanu.

He told the court that Kanu had in a recorded interview session with the DSS, admitted that he was the founder of IPOB, its armed wing- Eastern Security Network, ESN- as well as Radio Biafra, which he said operated illegally as it was not licensed in Nigeria.

He insisted that the defendant, through his broadcasts, made inflammatory statements that incited his followers to attack police officers and government facilities.

“One of the Lagos High Courts was burnt, buses belonging to the Lagos State government were also burnt.

“We established that his orders were carried out.

“We were also able to establish that he did not only call for the killing of police and army, but also that they should be beheaded. And a police officer was killed and beheaded.

“The broadcasts were many and he (Kanu) confirmed that the broadcasts were his,” the witness added.

Related News

He told the court that the agitation for Biafra Republic, led by Kanu, was for the secession of states in the South East, South South, parts of Benue and Kogi state, from Nigeria.

According to him, Kanu called for the “establishment of Biafra by any means possible, including war.”

However, in the video that was played in the open court on Thursday, Kanu, denied responsibility for the alleged acts of violence, insisting his agitation was non-violent.

Kanu further asserted that the IPOB “cannot be involved in any criminality,” saying it was not true that his broadcasts led to killings in Lagos during the EndSARS protests.

Besides, Kanu argued that Lagos is not within the Biafran territory, adding that he established the IPOB to further the interest of the South East region.

In the said video, the embattled IPOB leader accused the Nigerian Army of invading his house and killing about 20 people.

He affirmed that he was in May 2017, charged to court by FG.

“I was in court and I was granted bail. I was in my house and the Nigerian Army came to kill me. I was at a loss. There was actually no need for it. There was no violence.

“What made the Army invade my house to kill me, and they ended up killing 28 people,” he queried.

“How have you been the one leading your organization, IPOB?” the interviewer asked Kanu in the video.

Responding, the defendant, said: “I have been leading them by talking about things that pertain to Biafran agitation and the laws of Nigeria, which include self-determination.

Asked if he was aware of loss of property and violence during the EndSARS protest due to some of his broadcasts.

Kanu, replied: “It is not true,” even as he refuted claim that between December 2020 and 2021, many atrocities committed in the South East were linked to the IPOB.

Describin the IPOB as a peaceful group, Kanu, said he had no idea what happened to the police and correctional centres in the South East.

He said he did not call for resistance when his parents died, alleging he was not arrested but kidnapped by security agents.

Meanwhile, a member of Kanu’s defence team, Mr. Paul Erokoro, SAN, challenged the admissibility of the video.

He persuaded the court to adjourn the matter to enable his team to consult further. 

Following agreement by lawyers in the matter, Justice Omotosho adjourned further hearing on the case till May 14, 21 and 22.

Disclaimer

Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof.