Department of State Services has filed a five-count charge of terrorism-related charges against the Kaduna-based activist and social critic, Mahdi Shehu, over his recent activities online and offline.
The charges were filed at the Federal High Court sitting in Kaduna last Friday, two days after he was re-arrested by plain-clothes security operatives at his clinic in Unguwar Dosa.
Recall that in December 2024, the activist was arrested and arraigned for sharing a misleading video on his social media handle.
The DSS covertly disclosed that Shehu was arrested after he shared “doctored videos, purporting that the Nigerian government had granted France permission to set up a military base in the North.”
Kaduna State High Court later granted him bail on January 9, 2025 in the sum of ₦3 million and two prominent clerics as sureties.
But the fresh move by the DSS came a day after it filed a motion ex parte before the same court for an order to detain Shehu for 60 days.
According to Daily Trust, a DSS operative, who spoke anonymously with the newspaper, explained that the motion was filed pursuant to Section 66 of the Terrorism (Prevention & Prohibition) Act, 2022.
“In granting the order, Justice Rilwan Aikawa held that the DSS should keep Shehu for 60 days to enable their officers conclude investigations,” the DSS operative reportedly confided in the Daily Trust’s correspondent.
He added that the counts against Shehu include false publication to cause public alarm contrary to Section 59 (1) of the Criminal Code Act and Dissemination of Terrorism related false information contrary to Section 26 (2) (a) and (b) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.
Other charges listed against the activist are intentional dissemination of false information contrary to Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition and Prevention, etc.) Act, 2024 (as amended); False allegation of Treasonable Act contrary yo Section 41 of the Criminal Code Act; and Use of social media to support false allegations of National Security Threat, contrary to Section 24(1) (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Act.
