Leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu, has filed a Direct Criminal Complaint against two prosecution witnesses who testified in his ongoing trial at the Federal High Court, Abuja.

The complaint comes days before the court delivers judgment on November 20, and accuses the two witnesses—identified as Mr. TAA (PW1) and Mr. BBB (PW2)—of willfully giving false evidence on oath, an offence Kanu argues amounts to perjury.

Kanu’s filing, addressed to the Chief Magistrate of the FCT High Court, invokes Sections 156, 158(1), 159(1), and 160 of the Penal Code, Section 88 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, and Sections 34 and 36 of the 1999 Constitution.

Allegations in the Complaint

According to Kanu:

“On diverse dates between May and July 2025… during the trial-within-trial in FRN v. Nnamdi Kanu (FHC/ABJ/CR/383/2015), the witnesses knowingly gave false evidence on oath, which was material to the admissibility of the 2015 and 2021 statements.”

Accusations Against PW1 (Mr. TAA)

Kanu cited the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the June 26, 2025 proceedings, where PW1 reportedly stated:

“I cannot recall… I didn’t know any other Mr. Brown, my lord.”

This was in response to a question about Mr. Brown Ekwoaba, a DSS Assistant Director (Investigations) who allegedly supervised Kanu’s interviews and detention in 2015.

Kanu insists this denial was false, referencing:

An affidavit by Prince Emmanuel Kanu confirming six visits to Brown Ekwoaba’s office between 2015 and 2016.

An affidavit by Benjamin Madubugwu confirming interviews with Ekwoaba and others in 2015.

Public records showing Ekwoaba served as Assistant Director (Investigations) from 2015–2020.

Accusations Against PW2 (Mr. BBB)

Kanu also claims PW2 gave contradictory testimony. He alleges that:

On page 202 of the CTC, PW2 swore he had never met Kanu before the court proceedings.

Yet on pages 184–188, the same witness admitted to leading Kanu’s 17 July 2021 video interview at DSS Headquarters.

Use of Masked Witnesses

The IPOB leader further argued that both witnesses testified behind masks and screens—a measure ordered by the trial court—but still gave “materially false testimony to conceal the true chain of custody” of his 2015 and 2021 statements.