Kanu Confesses Radio Biafra’s Nigerian Broadcasts Were Unlawful, Says It Was Founded to Champion Human Rights

 

The courtroom atmosphere in Abuja was tense and closely watched on Tuesday as a critical segment of the trial of Nnamdi Kanu, leader of the proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), unfolded. A video played in open court showed Kanu, during an interrogation by the Department of State Services (DSS), acknowledging that he founded Radio Biafra. He insisted it was created to advocate for "truth, peace, and the fight for fundamental human rights", even as he admitted the station operated without legal broadcast permission in Nigeria.

During the resumed proceedings before Justice James Omotosho of the Federal High Court, Kanu’s statements were scrutinized not just for their content but for their legal implications. Prosecutors presented the video as part of a growing compilation of exhibits aiming to link the IPOB leader to terrorism and treasonable felony charges. Kanu had been re-arraigned on March 21 to face a renewed set of accusations brought against him by the federal government.

Prosecuting counsel, Adegboyega Awomolo, SAN, began the day’s session with an ex parte application filed on April 10, requesting the court to shield the identities of the witnesses expected to testify in the matter. The rationale, according to Awomolo, was to protect the safety and anonymity of state security officials who had played pivotal roles in the investigation and arrest of the IPOB leader.

Justice Omotosho granted the application following no objection from Kanu’s lead counsel, Kanu Agabi, SAN. This decision paved the way for the court to hear from the first prosecution witness, who was referred to by the pseudonym “AAA” to safeguard his identity. AAA, a DSS operative, testified that he was part of the team that arrested Kanu on October 15, 2015, at the Golden Tulip Hotel in Lagos.

Testimony from AAA included details about the moment of arrest and the subsequent recovery of key items from Kanu’s hotel room. Among the seized materials were broadcasting devices that were allegedly being used to transmit Radio Biafra signals. These items have now been submitted as exhibits and formally admitted into court records.

As the DSS’s recorded interrogation played, Kanu appeared visibly composed, detailing the origins and operations of Radio Biafra. He said the station was officially registered with the United Kingdom government and primarily funded by IPOB supporters residing in different parts of the world. He further explained that he provided periodic financial transparency to the UK government regarding the station’s operations.

However, Kanu conceded that while Radio Biafra may be registered in the UK, its broadcasts within Nigeria were not legally sanctioned. He openly stated that he had not registered the station with Nigeria’s National Broadcasting Commission (NBC), an omission that, by his own admission, made the local transmissions illegal under Nigerian law.

Another revelation that caught the court's attention was Kanu’s claim that he was interrogated by DSS operatives without access to legal representation, a practice that contravenes both Nigerian constitutional provisions and international human rights standards. This statement, presented in written form and read out in court, could potentially factor into future legal arguments regarding the admissibility of some of his statements or the propriety of the DSS’s methods.

Prosecutors are leveraging Kanu’s admissions in the video to bolster their case that the IPOB leader not only willfully violated Nigerian broadcasting laws but also used the platform to incite actions the government interprets as terrorism and sedition. These charges have followed Kanu for years, intertwining legal proceedings with broader geopolitical and ethnic tensions in southeastern Nigeria, where IPOB draws most of its support.

Despite the high stakes, the defense did not object to the witness anonymity request or the introduction of the video evidence. This could indicate a strategic approach or confidence in contesting the prosecution’s interpretation of the facts at a later stage of the trial.

The public airing of the video adds a new dimension to the ongoing trial. It not only gives credence to some of the DSS’s allegations but also invites broader discourse about the intersection of state security, civil liberties, and the rights of individuals accused of undermining national unity.

Nnamdi Kanu’s trial continues to draw national and international attention, not merely for its political implications but for the legal precedents it may set concerning freedom of expression, due process, and the state’s response to separatist movements. As proceedings continue, more evidence is expected to emerge, and both sides will likely intensify their arguments as the court edges closer to determining Kanu’s fate.