The Department of State Services (DSS) has told Justice James Omotosho of Abuja Division of the Federal High Court that the paramilitary wing of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), the Eastern Security Network (ESN), was an illegal organisation.
According to the DSS, the ESN was operating without the backing of the law.
IPOB, a proscribed pro- Biafra separatist movement had early in December 2020, launched the ESN as a reaction to the perception of targeted killings of Igbos by bandits and herdsmen from the northern region.
While under re-examination in the ongoing trial of the detained leader of IPOB, Nnamdi Kanu, a prosecution witness and a personnel of the DSS, simply identified as BBB, told the court that the ESN was an illegal organisation considering its establishment outside of the law.
Specifically, the witness was responding to a question by the prosecution counsel, Chief Adegboyega Awolowo, SAN, to differentiate between ESN and Amotekun in the South Western region of the country.
The witness told the court that while the ESN was formed without any backing of the law, Amotekun security outfit, on the other hand, has legal backing from the respective Houses of Assembly of the affected States.
“Amotekun, the South-Western region security network was set up in all the six states of the South-Western region to complement the effort of security agencies in curbing insecurity, especially kidnapping, armed robbery as well as herdsmen and farmers contentions in the region.
“My lord, while the ESN is not a registered organisation recognised by law, Amotekun was established following the law passed by the respective Houses of Assembly in the affected states,” the witness clarified.
Meanwhile, during cross-examination of the witness by the defence counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, the court admitted in evidence, a Certified True Copy (CTC) of the Lagos State Judicial Panel of Inquiry on Restitution of victims of #EndSARs and other Related Abuses and related matters.
The report which was tendered from the Bar by the defence team was admitted and marked as exhibit PWUO.
The defence team then proceeded to tender a flash drive accompanied with a certificate of compliance from the Bar.
Both the flash drive and the certificate of compliance were admitted and marked as exhibits PWP and PWI respectively.
The court therefore adjourned further trial dates to May 28 and 29 and June 6, 16, 18 and 19 respectively for prosecution to close its case.
