“No Evidence to Back Assassination, Phone Hack Claims by Turaki” — Police Witness Tells Court. …as Turaki Faces False information Trial

“No Evidence to Back Assassination, Phone Hack Claims by Turaki” — Police Witness Tells Court.

…as Turaki Faces False information Trial

In the ongoing criminal trial of the factional chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party, PDP, Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, in the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, FCT, before Justice Peter Kekemeke, on Thursday, a senior police officer has told the court there was no evidence to back claims of assassination threats and phone hacking made in a 6-page petition submitted to the police by Turaki.

The prosecutor opened the day by announcing his witness. After taking the oath to tell the truth, the witness, Yakubu Dauda, a police officer attached to the Monitoring Unit, took the stand.

The prosecutor reminded the court that the defendant, Kabiru Tanimu Turaki, standing trial for allegedly giving false information to the police through a petition in October 2022, a charge the defendant has denied.

The witness, Mr. Yakubu Dauda, said in October 2022, the Monitoring Unit received a petition assigned by the Inspector-General of Police for investigation. He was part of the team alongside one CSP Usman Garba.

He described the petition as a 6-page document with 30 paragraphs in which the defendant detailed his social status and traditional titles before laying out the allegations.

According to him, the petition alleged that one Mainasara Saidu planned to defame the defendant’s image and would hire “marabouts and assassins” to kill him.

The petition, he said, also centered on a marital dispute between Hafsat Najib and her husband. The defendant claimed he intervened but later stepped aside out of frustration.

The officer told the court the defendant further alleged that Mainasara spoke with his driver and one Alhaji Shehu Muhammed to claim the defendant sponsored his wife’s trip to Dubai and even confronted his orderly about an affair.

Because the defendant specifically asked the IGP to prosecute the accused, the team invited him to the station. He presented witnesses and their statements were taken.

When investigators contacted Mainasara Saidu, he denied the allegations. He said he only acted on information from a woman and gave her contact and address to the police.

For more than 3 months, the technical investigation unit could not locate the woman. The case file was then forwarded to the legal department for advice, who later got a new head.

The witness said he was later ordered to invite parties and “intensify efforts” to find the woman. He eventually traced and brought the woman in question in, and she revealed her own source, who was also brought to the station.

He further said Mainasara Saidu later appeared with his own witnesses. Their statements were also recorded by police during the investigation.

The head of unit then directed that all the defendant be invited to respond to all witness statements. When the invitation was sent to the defendant, he sent a letter informing that he had a court order stopping police action on the matter, so the file went back to legal.

Under cross-examination by the prosecutor, the officer said invitations and correspondence were sent via WhatsApp. He confirmed the petition raised serious claims including threats to life and attempts to hack the defendant’s phone.

On claims of hiring assassins or marabouts and on the alleged phone hacking, “there was no evidence to sustain the fact.”

He concluded that the petition was received on IGP letterhead in October 2022 and all statements were recorded on official police forms. Eight exhibits were tendered, with an application by the prosecutor to admit more.

All the documents sort to be tendered by the prosecutor were admitted by the court without opposition by the defendant, except one which was the WhatsApp printout communication between the defendant and claimant.

The defendant’s counsel objected, arguing the documents were inadmissible.

Justice Kekemeke noted 19 documents marked A to A18.

The prosecutor countered, saying according to section 5 of the evidence law, relevance determines admissibility of evidence, also citing a 2022 Court of Appeal ruling.

The matter was adjourned to 23rd Septement 2026.