FG Didn’t Mandate Tukur Mamu To Negotiate With Terrorists, DSS Witness Tells Court

An operative of the Department of State Service, (DSS) on Wednesday told the Federal High Court in Abuja that the federal government did not at any  time appoint Tukur Mamu to negotiate with terrorists who attacked a train on the Abuja -Kaduna corridor in 2022.

Rather, said the DSS operative, Tukur, who is standing trial for alleged terrorism financing, sidelined a committee set up by the Chief of Defence Staff to negotiate for the release of those abducted during the train attack.

Led in evidence by counsel to the DSS, David Kaswe, the witness whose identity was shielded for security purposes said 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 made it possible for 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 sums recovered from Mamu’s Kaduna 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, 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, stating it was not necessary because he worked with a preliminary report.

The defence also queried 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 adjourned further cross examination of the witness to January 29, 2026.