The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday admitted an AK 47 allegedly recovered from one of the suspects linked to the June 2025 Yelwata attacks in Benue State.
Judge Joyce Abdulmalik admitted the rifle after the first prosecution witness showed it to the court during proceedings on Monday.
|
|
Testifying, the witness, Moses Paul, who is a senior officer from the Nigeria Police Force’s Intelligence Response Unit, said the firearm was recovered from Ardo Muhammadu Saidu, one of the defendants.
“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,” said Mr Paul.
|
|
|
|---|
The judge admitted the rifle as Exhibit A, and the accompanying naira notes as Exhibits C1 to C5, respectively.
The prosecution also tendered a ballistic report, which the witness said showed that the rifle was “recently used and active.” The judge admitted the report as Exhibit B.
On 2 February, the Nigerian government arraigned nine defendants linked to the 13 June 2025 attack on Yelwata village in Guma Local Government Area, Benue State. The attack reportedly claimed the lives of about 150 people.
The Nigerian government arraigned the defendants on 57 terrorism charges.
The suspects include Ardo Lawal Mohammed Dono, Ardo Muhammadu Saidu, and Alhaji Haruna Abdullahi.
The rest are Yakubu Adamu, Musa Mohammed, Abubakar Adamu, Shaibu Ibrahim, Sale Mohammed, and Bako Jibrin.
The defendants, who are all male, denied all charges during their arraignment.
During the proceedings held on 26 February,, the prosecution called its first witness, a senior officer from the Nigeria Police Force’s Intelligence Response Unit.
The witness narrated the circumstances of the Yelwata attack, stating that the assailants, armed with rifles, stormed the community following prior meetings in Nasarawa State.
How AK47 was recovered – Witness
At the resumed trial on Monday, the first prosecution witness, Moses Paul, led in evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Federation, Rotimi Oyedepo, said investigation revealed that “the whole problem started with an anti-grazing law instituted by the Benue State Government.
One of the first people that was affected was Haruna Abdullahi, the third defendant, who said his children and cattle were killed. He put a call to the police and reported what happened to him.
The witness said the police invited him to find a solution. “But he refused and told the police that he will organise men for a revenge mission,” Mr Paul said.
The witness said Muhammed Sayidi, the second defendant, was also affected by the anti-grazing law. “Muhammed said above 150 cows and two of his children were killed close to Yelwata and later bought an AK‑47 for one million naira from one Musa.”
He said further that “these and many more attacks resulted from our investigation being the reason both Messrs Haruna and Sayidi and Ardo met the first defendant who is the chief of Fulanis in Nassarawa State.”
He said investigation revealed that the first defendant, Ardo Lawal Mohammed Dono, “organised the meeting which was for all the Ardos in Nassarawa and Benue present at the meeting.
“He also asked all the Ardos to go home and organise themselves for the attack and that all must contribute financially or otherwise and that anybody that did not contribute will be dealt with.”
Following Mr Lawal’s instructions, Mr Paul further alleged that Mr Saidu, being the Ardo of Kadanko, held a second meeting in his own palace where they decided how each person would contribute money and resources.
During the process of that meeting, there was even an argument on where they would attack. And there they agreed to attack Yelwata, Daudu, and Udeyi, and they concluded Yelwata”
He said their investigation further revealed that Haruna Abdullahi contributed “the sum of 300,000 while Musa Muhammed contributed 200,000 for that attack.”
“Haruna Abdullahi led the attack while Ardo Muhammadu Saidu revealed to us that he went to the attack with five of his children still at large, all with AK‑47s.” And he confessed that during the course of the attack, he personally killed eight people.
“He also mentioned all the other people he recognised as being present during the attack,” the witness said.
Exhibits admitted
When asked if he was able to get any of the AK‑47s, the witness said he recovered one from Mr Saidu and according to him, the others are with his children, and one of his children was killed in the battle with the military while the other AK‑47s are still with the children at large.
While showing the gun in court, Mr Paul 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.”
Two of the defence lawyers reserved their objections to the admissibility of the exhibit, while others said they were not objecting.
The judge admitted the AK‑47 and naira notes in evidence.
Continuing, the witness said the AK‑47 was taken for ballistic analysis, and a report on its usability was obtained from the ballistician.
Mr Angulu, lawyer to the first defendant, objected again, stating that the report was not from the witness and required certification as a public document.
The lawyer to the second defendant relied on the first defendant’s lawyer’s objection, while other defence lawyers reserved their objections.
Responding, prosecution lawyer, Mr Oyedepo, said, “The document is in original form and does not require any other certificate. It was submitted to the office of PW1 and the stamp shows it was a document received in the course of investigation.”
After hearing the lawyers’ submissions, the judge admitted the ballistic report as evidence.
The witness also testified that Musa Muhammed, brother to the third defendant, was part of the meeting to plan the attack and contributed. Shuaibi Ibrahim, the eighth defendant, was also said to be part of the meeting and refused to give information to the police despite stern warning.
“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 said.
And added that Sale Muhammed was also present at the meeting at Ardo’s places.
After the witness concluded his testimony, the prosecution tendered the defendants’ statements, including those taken in June last year and that of the second defendant taken in November last year, except for the statement of the eighth defendant.
READ ALSO: Born into War: The harrowing world of child survivors of Plateau, Benue bloodbaths
Mr Angulu, lawyer to the first defendant, objected to the admissibility of the statement credited to his client, saying it was obtained under extreme duress and in the absence of his client’s lawyer.
The lawyer to the second defendant and other defence lawyers supported the objections.
The judge ordered a trial-within-trial to commence 10 a.m. on 13 March.
Defence alleges police intimidation
Earlier in the case, the lawyers to the defendants, Ibrahim Angulu, A. I. Kaura, Ahmed Muhammad, and Y. A. Hassan, alleged that they were informed that the police were forcing the defendants to make statements in custody.
Mr Angulu said he was informed by the first defendant that the police continued to come to prison to intimidate him on the evidence before the court.
“Despite the first defendant being in their custody for eight months, he told me that the police have been there three times. In the interest of justice, I want them to leave him alone,” the lawyer said.
The rest of the defence lawyers made similar submissions.
Responding, Mr Oyedepo said the investigation had been concluded and that he believed that the claims could only be in the imagination of the defence, yet would investigate it.
“But I learnt that when the defendants were remanded, they went to the correctional centre with their phones, so the police might have gone to the correctional centre to get the devices. If they have another statement, who will tender it?” he asked.
He added that the prosecution will not do anything to jeopardise the interest of justice.
Judge Abdulmalik said in the interest of fair hearing, she must have cogent evidence before making any directive and cannot make any because she has not heard from the prison authorities.
