Alex Enumah in Abuja 

A witness of the Department of State Services (DSS) on Wednesday, told a Federal High Court in Abuja, that Tukur Mamu was not at any time appointed by the Federal Government to negotiate with terrorists that attacked the Abuja-Kaduna train in 2022.

The witness, who is an operative of the DSS, alleged that Tukur sidelined the Chief of Defence Staff Committee put in place to negotiate for the release of those abducted during the March 28, 2022 train attack.

Tukur is standing trial on charges bordering on alleged terrorism funding.

Led in evidence by DSS lawyer, David Kaswe, the witness, whose identity was not made public for security purposes, said that the defendant “was not mandated by the government to engage in any form of investigation or negotiation with terrorists, but acted on his own for his personal benefit”.

The witness alleged that the defendant encouraged terrorists to discuss ransom payments with victims, collected money on their behalf, confirmed amounts and “facilitated payments illegally”.

He further claimed that the defendant benefited financially from the ransom negotiations and possessed firearms unlawfully, and even provided terrorists with information on how to create a website.

He added that the huge money recovered from the Kaduna residence of the defendant exceeded the threshold permitted by law, and that the defendant’s lifestyle “changed significantly” during the negotiation period.

“He was arrested in the company of four family members while on a trip to Egypt, and he bought two flashy cars during the negotiation period,” the witness stated.

During cross-examination, the defence counsel, Johnson Usman (SAN), challenged several aspects of the DSS investigation.

Usman questioned whether the DSS, which has operatives at all Nigerian airports, verified how the defendant and his family travelled to Egypt to which the witness replied that he was not aware of their travel details but confirmed that the defendant’s passport was in DSS custody.

When asked if he was a diligent investigator, the witness affirmed that he was, though he admitted he did not open the defendant’s passport during the investigation, adding that it was not necessary because he worked with a preliminary report.

The defence also queried the inconsistencies regarding the negotiation process. Usman suggested that the terrorists asked victims to propose negotiators, and victims suggested several names. 

The witness agreed that the victims introduced names, but insisted only the defendant (Mamu) agreed to engage with the terrorists, and maintained the defendant was not part of the CDS committee.

Usman further pressed the witness on hostage releases during the crisis. He noted that before the defendant’s involvement, only one hostage had been released.

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

​