The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday admitted an AK-47 rifle and several naira notes as exhibits in the ongoing trial of suspects linked to the June 13, 2025 attack on Yelwata village in Guma Local Government Area of Benue State.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik admitted the rifle as Exhibit A after the first prosecution witness, Moses Paul, a senior officer of the Nigeria Police Force Intelligence Response Unit, identified the firearm in court.
The accompanying naira notes found with the rifle were admitted as Exhibits C1 to C5, while a ballistic report confirming the weapon’s status was admitted as Exhibit B.
The Federal Government had on February 2 arraigned nine men on 57 counts of terrorism over their alleged involvement in the attack, which reportedly claimed about 150 lives.
The defendants are Ardo Lawal Mohammed Dono, Ardo Muhammadu Saidu, Alhaji Haruna Abdullahi, Yakubu Adamu, Musa Mohammed, Abubakar Adamu, Shaibu Ibrahim, Sale Mohammed and Bako Jibrin. They all pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Continuing his evidence-in-chief under questioning by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, the witness told the court that police investigation traced the crisis to the enforcement of the Benue State anti-grazing law.
According to him, the third defendant, Abdullahi, complained that his cattle and children were killed and allegedly vowed to organise a revenge attack after refusing police invitation to resolve the dispute.
The witness further testified that the second defendant, Saidu, claimed that more than 150 cows and two of his children were killed near Yelwata and that he subsequently bought an AK-47 rifle for N1m from a man identified as Musa.
He said the investigation revealed that several community leaders, including the defendants, later held meetings in Nasarawa State, where the first defendant, Dono, allegedly directed Fulani leaders, known as Ardos, to organise and fund a coordinated attack.
Paul said Saidu later convened another meeting at his palace, where participants debated possible targets before eventually settling on Yelwata, Daudu and Udeyi, with Yelwata becoming the primary target.
He added that Abdullahi allegedly contributed N300,000 towards the operation, while Musa Mohammed contributed N200,000.
According to the witness, Abdullahi allegedly led the attack, while Saidu confessed to participating alongside five of his children, who were armed with AK-47 rifles and are still at large. He told investigators that he personally killed eight people during the assault.
Paul told the court that during the investigation, police recovered one AK-47 rifle from Saidu.
While displaying the weapon in court, he said, “The rifle has some naira notes in between because it is their belief that if you put money in an AK-47, it will answer.”
After the rifle was tendered, two defence lawyers reserved their objections while others raised none. The court subsequently admitted the firearm and the naira notes into evidence.
The witness said the rifle was later subjected to ballistic examination and a report confirming that the weapon was recently used and functional was obtained.
However, counsel to the first defendant, Ibrahim Angulu, objected to the admissibility of the ballistic report, arguing that the witness was not the maker of the document and that it required certification as a public document.
Counsel to the second defendant aligned with the objection, while other defence lawyers reserved theirs.
In response, Oyedepo argued that the report was the original document submitted to the witness’s office during the investigation and therefore required no additional certification. After hearing both sides, the court admitted the ballistic report as evidence.
The witness also testified that Musa Mohammed, a brother to the third defendant, attended one of the planning meetings and contributed financially to the attack.
He further alleged that the eighth defendant, Shaibu Ibrahim, attended the meeting but refused to provide information to the police despite warnings.
“If the seventh and eighth defendants had given that information to the police, the police would have actively investigated, apprehended and prosecuted offenders, and could have prevented the attack,” the witness told the court.
Following the testimony, the prosecution sought to tender several statements allegedly made by the defendants during the investigation.
However, defence lawyers objected, claiming the statements were obtained under duress and in the absence of legal representation.
Justice Abdulmalik consequently ordered a trial-within-trial to determine the admissibility of the statements and adjourned proceedings to March 13.
Earlier, defence counsel had accused the police of intimidating the defendants in custody and attempting to force them to make additional statements.
Angulu told the court that the first defendant complained that police officers had visited him repeatedly in custody over the past eight months to pressure him about the case.
Responding, Oyedepo denied any attempt to intimidate the defendants, stating that investigations had already been concluded. He added that officers might have visited the correctional centre only to retrieve mobile phones allegedly taken there by the defendants.
The judge, however, said she could not issue any directive on the allegation without concrete evidence or input from the correctional authorities, stressing that the court must rely on cogent facts before taking action.
Leave a comment