From Okey Sampson, Umuahia
The family of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), has condemned what it calls deliberate misrepresentation of court proceedings in his ongoing terrorism trial by certain media outlets.
In a statement signed by Emmanuel Kanu, the family described an article titled “Nnamdi Kanu Admitted Inciting Public to Attack Police, Witness Tells Court” as a blatant distortion aimed at misleading the public and damaging Kanu’s global reputation.
“This disgraceful journalism reflects a disturbing trend of anti-Biafra and Igbo-hating sentiments that prioritise sensationalism over factual reporting,” Emmanuel stated.
The family highlighted the May 6, 2025, hearing at the Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, where the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness, PW-AAA from the Department of State Services (DSS), exposed significant weaknesses. The witness admitted ignorance of key details, including the original 15-count charge against Kanu, the striking out of several charges, and specific allegations of inciting attacks on government properties in Lagos.
When questioned about a charge alleging incitement to destroy public properties, PW-AAA confirmed awareness but was unaware it had been struck out, directly contradicting media claims that Kanu “admitted” to incitement. “The witness’s response of ‘I’m not aware’ cannot be twisted into an admission of guilt,” the family asserted.
The family also criticised the prosecution, led by Adegboyega Awomolo, for claiming to have filed a process on April 28, 2025, when it only submitted an unfiled list of items on May 5, 2025, four years after allegedly obtaining a statement from witness PW2-BBB. This list was neither legally filed nor served to the defence, violating due process. Justice Omotosho cautioned Awomolo to adhere to legal procedures and serve all required documents.
The family described PW2-BBB, who Kanu called a “mercenary hired to testify against him,” as an unknown individual not based at DSS headquarters, whose unsubstantiated claims lacked evidence. They expressed dismay at the prosecution’s reliance on baseless allegations and the media’s focus on trivial matters, such as the exclusion of Kanu’s sister-in-law, Favour Kanu, for livestreaming proceedings, to distract from the prosecution’s failures.
The Kanu family demanded that media outlets retract false reports and focus on the case’s substance, vowing not to remain silent while Nnamdi Kanu’s reputation is maligned.