In a dramatic turn at the ongoing trial over the 2022 Abuja–Kaduna train attack, a witness from Department of State Services (DSS) told the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday that alleged negotiator Tukur Mamu was offered ₦50 million by the group’s leader for his role in ransom negotiations.
The testimony — given behind a protective screen for security reasons — came from the sixth prosecution witness, identified only as PW-6 and led in evidence by DSS counsel David Kaswe. The witness said the payment request arose in a recorded voice note from the terrorists’ leader, known as Shugaba. Shugaba reportedly told Mamu to “remove N50 million for his personal use” from a tranche of ransom to be delivered.
What the court heard: recordings, ransom logistics, and alleged deceit
• The prosecution played four voice-note recordings extracted from Mamu’s mobile devices during a forensic analysis after his arrest in Egypt and repatriation to Nigeria. The first recording concerned setting a date for ransom delivery; the second featured Shugaba offering the N50 million cut. The final notes included a request by the group’s spokesperson to have Mamu procure speakers and a public address system — and even help them set up a website for their activities.
• The DSS witness explained that Mamu had allegedly steered the ransom negotiations away from the government-appointed Chief of Defence Staff Committee (CDS Committee) — which was established to negotiate with the captors — and instead convinced the terrorists to deal with individual families of hostages. The prosecution claims this was done to enable Mamu’s personal financial gain.
• After Mamu’s arrest, security agents executed a search warrant at his residence and office in Kaduna. They allegedly recovered large sums in both Naira and foreign currency — including about US$300,000 — as well as several vehicles (including a Toyota Camry “Muscle,” Peugeot 5008, Lexus, Mercedes E350, and a Hyundai). Vehicle documents relating to the cars were admitted as evidence.
• The witness also said that Mamu handed over a Samsung tablet and two phones which were sent to forensic analysts. The extracted voice-notes were presented during interrogation. Mamu allegedly admitted to instructing an in-law to move valuables from his house, and to communicating with terrorists via the devices. He also admitted owning a pump-action gun — but its licence had expired in December 2021.
Background: The train attack and Mamu’s charges
The Abuja–Kaduna train attack occurred on 28 March 2022 in Katari, Kaduna State, when armed bandits ambushed the train, bombed cars, and abducted dozens of passengers at gunpoint. Casualties were reported among those onboard.
Mamu, a Kaduna-based publisher, was arrested in Egypt in September 2022 — reportedly while en route to Saudi Arabia — and extradited to Nigeria. The DSS had accused him of acting as a financier and negotiator for terrorists, facilitating ransom payments made by victims’ families after the attack.
He was arraigned in March 2023 on multiple counts, including terrorism financing, receipt of ransom payments, dealing with terrorist funds, and communication with designated terrorists via voice notes. Mamu has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Indeed, investigations by the financial-regulation authority Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU) later listed Mamu among a group of 15 individuals allegedly involved in terrorism financing.
During Tuesday’s sitting, the court admitted the recorded voice-notes (on CD plates and flash drive) as evidence after Mamu’s counsel reserved his objection until final address.
Two victims of the train attack had earlier submitted written statements — one in English, another in Hausa — recounting their ordeal. However, both later declined to appear in court, citing fear and trauma. Their statements were nevertheless admitted as exhibits after the defence did not object.
The court has now adjourned the case until 26 November 2025 at 11:00 a.m. for continuation of trial proceedings.
This latest testimony by the DSS deepens the prosecution’s narrative that Mamu was more than a humanitarian negotiator — alleging he acted for personal enrichment, diverted funds, facilitated ransom on behalf of terrorists, and aided their broader operations. The inclusion of voice notes requesting help with websites and PA systems suggests a degree of organisational support extending beyond just ransom delivery.
If the court finds the submissions credible — including forensic evidence, financial trail, and the recovered assets — the verdict could have significant ramifications for how hostage negotiations and ransom dealings are prosecuted under Nigerian anti-terrorism laws.
