The Federal Government said 2,671 pump action rifles were smuggled into the country on four different occassions in 2017 alone by the Leader of the Indigenous People Of Biafra, IPOB which was intercepted by the Nigeria custom.
The Federal Government disclosed this in a counter-affidavit filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation and which was deposed to by a litigation officer in the Department of State Services, Mr. Ayuba Adam.
Adam, who disclosed in the counter-affidavit that IPOB was a violent group pretending to be non-violent, said a Turkish citizen, Abdukadir Erahraman, visited Kanu sometimes in July 2017 when he was urging “Biafrans to rise up and fight a good fight for freedom.”
Drawing a link between the Turkish citizen’s visit to Kanu and the arms smuggled into Nigeria, the counter-affidavit added that the NCS had intercepted 2,671 rifles smuggled from Turkey in 2017 alone.
The counter-affidavit read in part, “That a Turkish citizen, Abdulkadir Erkahraman, visited Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the respondent/applicant in Isiama Afara, Umuahia, Abia State sometimes in July 2017, and has been canvassing support for the secessionist agenda of the respondent/applicant. He also admonished Biafrans to rise up and fight a good fight for freedom.’
“That the Nigeria Customs Service had on four occasions this year intercepted pump action rifles totalling 2,671 illegally imported into the country. Copies of the report on arms smuggling is attached herewith and marked as Exhibit FGN 2A and 2B.”
But IPOB, through a further affidavit filed by its counsel, Mr. Ifeanyi Ejiofor, on Monday, denied any link to the intercepted weapons.
The further affidavit stated, “That contrary to the erroneous deposition in paragraph 6(h) of the applicant/respondent’s counter-affidavit which is denied, the alleged pump action rifles totalling 2,671, illegally imported into the country from Turkey, was not directly traced to Nnamdi Kanu or anyone associated with him.”
Justice Abdu Kafarati heard the two parties on Tuesday after which he adjourned until January 17 for ruling on whether or not the proscription of IPOB should be proscribed.
Go to Source