DSS Witness Refutes Tukur Mamu’s Negotiation Mandate

A witness from the Department of State Services (DSS) testified before the Federal High Court in Abuja on Wednesday, asserting that Tukur Mamu, who faces terrorism funding charges, was never mandated by the Nigerian government to negotiate with the terrorists responsible for the 2022 Abuja-Kaduna train attack. The witness claimed Mamu acted independently for personal gain.

The DSS operative, whose identity remains withheld for security reasons, stated that Mamu actively bypassed the Chief of Defence Staff Committee, the official body set up to negotiate the release of the victims abducted during the March 28, 2022, train attack.

Led in evidence by DSS lawyer David Kaswe, the witness firmly stated the defendant “was not mandated by the government to engage in any form of investigation or negotiation with terrorists.” Instead, the operative maintained that Mamu “acted on his own for his personal benefit.”

The witness further alleged that Mamu not only encouraged the terrorists to discuss ransom payments with victims but also collected money on their behalf, confirmed the amounts, and “facilitated payments illegally.”

The prosecution witness made several claims regarding Mamu’s alleged unlawful activities, suggesting he benefited financially from the ransom negotiations. He further accused Mamu of possessing firearms unlawfully and providing terrorists with information on how to create a website.

The operative added that investigators recovered huge sums of money from Mamu’s Kaduna residence that exceeded the legal financial threshold. He claimed that the defendant’s lifestyle underwent a significant change during the negotiation period.

He revealed to the court that Mamu “was arrested in the company of four family members while on a trip to Egypt,” and purchased two flashy cars during the time he was engaged in the ransom negotiations.

During cross-examination, the defense counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, challenged the DSS investigation’s integrity, questioning why the DSS, which has operatives at all airports, failed to verify how Mamu and his family traveled to Egypt.

The DSS witness responded that he was unaware of their travel details but confirmed that Mamu’s passport was already in the agency’s custody. He affirmed he was a diligent investigator but admitted he did not open the defendant’s passport during the investigation, stating it was unnecessary as he relied on a preliminary report.

The defense also raised questions about inconsistencies in the negotiation process, suggesting that the terrorists asked the victims to propose negotiators, and the victims suggested several names. The witness conceded that victims introduced names but insisted that only Mamu agreed to engage with the terrorists.

The witness maintained his position that Mamu was not an authorized part of the CDS committee. Usman further pressed the witness on the release of hostages, noting that before Mamu’s involvement, only one hostage had been released.

Justice Mohammed Garba Umar has adjourned the further cross-examination of the witness to January 29, 2026.