A Department of State Services (DSS) investigator told the Federal High Court in Abuja that Mr. Tukur Mamu was involved in the case. betrayed the committee set up by the Federal Government to negotiate the release of the Abuja-Kaduna train attack hostages in 2022.
The DSS operative, who testified as the 6th prosecution witness (PW-6) in the ongoing terrorism trial of Mamu, the alleged terrorists’ negotiator, told Justice Mohammed Umar, while being led in evidence by the DSS lawyer, David Kaswe.
The witness, who gave his testimony behind a witness screen for security reasons, identified Mamu.
“I am a public servant. I have been with the DSS for 15 years.
“Currently, I work in the investigation department, and I have been working there for about 10 years as an investigator.
“In 2022, on March 28 to be precise, the Kaduna-bound train was attacked en route to Kaduna.
“Several persons were killed and others were injured, and over 60 people were taken into the bush as hostages.
“Thereafter, a committee which was already in existence, handling similar cases of abduction, with government support, was mandated to also explore measures for the release of the hostages.
“The committee was supervised by then Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Gen. Lucky Irabor (rtd.).
“The committee established communication with the terrorists on the possibility of securing the release of the kidnapped hostages.
“And the terrorists made some demands which include the release of members of their families who were in custody of government detention facilities in exchange for the release of the hostages,” he said.
The witness said that while that was going on, the terrorists consulted with some of the hostages in their custody and recommended names of persons whom they felt could negotiate on their behalf with the government.
“Names were suggested, and the suggested names were forwarded to the people suggested, seeking their willingness to accept in the negotiation on behalf of the terrorist group.
“All those that were contacted declined to take the offer except the defendant, who offered himself to negotiate on behalf of the terrorist group with the government.
“Thereafter, as earlier stated, a window of communication was already established between the government recognised committee and the terrorists.
“So when the defendant came onboard, communication was taken place on multiple fronts at the same time, that is apart from the committee.”
According to him, after some time, the defendant (Mamu) expressed his dissatisfaction with the arrangement, which involved communication on multiple fronts.
“The defendant, having been accepted to negotiate on their behalf with government, suggested or advised the terrorists to appoint a single interlocutor or negotiator.”
The PW-6 said Mamu then became the only negotiator between the terror group and the government committee.
“So when the defendant emerged as the sole interlocutor between the terrorist group and government, attempts by the committee members to reach out to the terrorists became a challenge, because they do not want to reach out to the committee anymore except through the defendant.
“Subsequently in order to continue with the government’s assignment, the committee now continues to recognise the defendant,” he said.
When the lawyer asked the witness to tell the court at what point Mamu became a subject of arrest, he said: “So the committee decided to work with the defendant for the release of the hostages since he had become the sole negotiator.
“Based on the agreement on prisoners’ swap, it was agreed that the women, the children and the sick should be prioritised in the prisoners’ swap.”
According to him, the agreement was that from the intelligence available to the committee, it was estimated that about 30 or 32 hostages were to be released for about eight members of the families of the terrorists.
“So, being the spokesperson between the terrorists and the government side, the defendant probably communicated a different thing to the terrorists because on the scheduled day, the committee mobilised vehicles to convey about 30 to 32 hostages, but on reaching there, only 11 hostages were brought out.
“The committee felt betrayed and felt that the defendant undermined the committee’s effort by taking a decision unilaterally, and the committee wrote an interim report to the government and a copy, which was also made available to us (DSS).
“The report highlighted the role of the defendant in undermining the committee’s assignment for his own personal gains,” he alleged.
The witness said the committee was constrained to work with Mamu as the sole negotiator for further negotiations with the terrorists.
“My lord, the terrorists, through the defendants, now demanded 1 billion euros for the release of the remaining hostages.
“There was stalemate for sometime as to what next to do in view of the circumstance,” he said.
The investigator said Mamu then suggested to the terrorists to explore negotiation with individual families of the hostages, “since according to him, the government was not serious and care about the lives of the hostages.”
He said the terrorists accepted the advice and directed Mamu to notify the family members of the hostages.
“So the defendant reached out to family members of the hostages for those who could raise the ransom demanded by terrorists to secure the release of their loved ones.
“The idea to collect ransom on behalf of the hostages was also communicated to the committee, but the committee rejected the offer.
“So members of the family members of the hostages who were able to raise various sums of money as ransom did so and brought it to the defendant.
“The defendant confirmed the amount, packaged it and coordinated the transportation of the ransom to the terrorists at the agreed location.
He said N100 million was paid by those hostages whose family members could pay, while Mamu largely determined the payment of ransom for those who could not raise up to the N100 million, by talking to the terrorist group.
“As time goes on, those that could not meet up paid what they could afford,” he said.
He said Mamu granted an interview during the period, which was published in his newspaper, the Desert Herald, between Aug. 16 and Aug. 22, 2022.
“It is a weekly publication on pages 19 and 25 where he said that apart from the 11 hostages that were released, he single-handedly facilitated the release of others without the input of the government or the committee.
“So the defendant collected various sums of money from all the family members of hostages and transported them to the terrorists,” he said.
The witness said Mamu also included some packages, which were wrapped together with the ransom he delivered to the terror group.
“He was running errands for them apart from ransom collection.
“The investigation revealed that during one of the errands, the defendant wrapped some rings with a (written) note which he folded (we don’t know the content of the writing) and he delivered it to the terrorists at the point of exchange.”
Justice Umar admitted the interim report by the CDS Action Committee, photocopies of the newspaper publication photos, two photos of the rings, and a stapled note, along with the certificate of compliance, as evidence and marked them as exhibits.
This occurred after Kaswe sought to tender them, and the application was not opposed by Mamu’s lawyer, Johnson Usman, SAN, who informed the court that any objections would be raised during the address.
The prosecution lawyer then sought an adjournment to enable the PW-6 to present audio recordings of Mamu’s interaction with the terrorists on the next adjourned date.
Justice Umar adjourned the matter until Nov. 25 and Nov. 26 for the continuation of the testimony of the PW-6.
Earlier, the PW-5, an Exhibit keeper with DSS, also testified and tendered exhibits against Mamu.
“With regards to this case, there were exhibits that were brought to us according to our record; the exhibit came on September 9, 2022.
“And another one came due to the subsequent investigation conducted by the service in respect to the case.
*My job mainly is to collect, store and record exhibits,” he said.
The witness listed the exhibits to include 300,000 dollars; N25, 690, 500; “one thousand eight hundred and forty Egyptian pounce; one thousand seven hundred India rupee; one hundred and fifteen UAE currency; two Kata Rial of Qatar currency and 16 coins of different currencies.”
Others tendered and admitted as exhibits were a pump-action, called Delta Magnum, and cartridges for the pump-action in two packs.
The witnesses said one pack contained 25 rounds of cartridges and the other 22.
He also tendered a license for the Pump Action, including two phones —Oppo and Samsung— along with a Samsung Tablet.
The witness also tendered seven cars allegedly belonging to Mamu.
“We have One Toyota Camry, metallic gold colour; we have Honda CRV, metallic blue colour; we have Mercedes Benz E350, white colour; we have Lexus 250, white colour; we have Hyundai Equs; a Peugeot 508, black color, we have another Peugeot 5008, maroon colour;” he said.
The witness said the cars, which had not been serviceable for a long time, were in the custody of the DSS.
The judge admitted them into evidence and marked them as exhibits after they were not opposed by Usman, who indicated that raise an objection if any during the address.
The post Tukur Mamu betrayed FG committee on train attack negotiations – DSS investigator appeared first on Vanguard News.
