The Federal High Court in Abuja has rescheduled the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).
The court adjourned the matter on Monday until 23 April for the adoption of written addresses.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mr Mamu filed the suit to challenge his designation by the AGF as a “terrorist” while he is still standing trial on terrorism charges.
In a separate case before the same Federal High Court judge in Abuja, Mohammed Umar, the federal government is prosecuting Mr Mamu on terrorism charges related to his interaction with some terrorists in the aftermath of their fatal attack on the Abuja-Kaduna bound train in 2022.
In November last year, the sixth prosecution witness, who is an agent of the State Security Service (SSS), testified that Mr Mamu was offered a N50 million share by Shugaba, leader of the terrorist group, who carried the attack.
Mr Mamu has been in the custody of the SSS after his arrest on 7 September 2022 based on his suspicious relationship with the terrorists that carried out the March 2022 train attack along the Abuja-Kaduna railway.
At least eight people died in the attack while 168 people were declared missing, most of whom were believed to have been kidnapped.
The remaining 23 kidnapped victims only regained their freedom after six months in captivity on 5 October 2022, following the federal government’s intervention.
Fundamental rights suit
Mr Mamu’s fundamental rights enforcement matter, which was scheduled for adoption of written addresses today (Monday) before the judge, Mr Umar, could not go on.
The court subsequently fixed the matter for 23 April.
On 25 November 2025, Mr Mamu, through his counsel, Johnson Usman, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), told the judge that the AGF’s action contravened Section 36(5) of the Nigerian constitution which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty by the court.
Mr Usman told the court that the printout of publications in the media where his client was designated as a terrorist had been attached to their application as exhibits.
The senior lawyer adopted the processes and urged the court to affirm Mr Mamu’s fundamental rights.
NAN reports that while Mr Mamu is the applicant in the fresh suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, the AGF is the only respondent.
His lawyer, Mr Usman, said while the federal government arraigned the applicant/defendant on alleged terrorism offences, it was wrong for it to go ahead and desinate him as terrorist in the case.
According to him, his team wrote to the AGF to reverse the “illegal” designation of defendant as a terrorist, but the AGF refused.
He argued that the federal government’s counter-affidavit against the suit admitted the allegation.
Mr Usman argued that it was legally, morally and religiously wrong to desinate Mr Mamu as a terrorist, having not been convicted by the court where he is facing trial.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced by court.
“It is only my lord that has the power and duty and not the respondent in this instant case.
“Having done that, the applicant is entitled to damages and to teach them a lesson that you cannot designate a person a terrorist who is undergoing a trial,” he said.
AGF defends action
However, AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, vehemently opposed Mr Usman’s submission.
He said his team filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition to the suit.
“We place heavy reliance on all the paragraphs in opposition to the applicant’s application,” he said.
According to Mr Kaswe, the only question before the court is whether the AGF had the power to designate the applicant as a terrorist at that time.
This, he said, is by law in line with Section 36(1 to 12) and also the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of Terrorism Prevention and Provision Act, 2022.
He argued that these provisions give the AGF the power to designate anybody a terrorist.
Citing Section 49 of the Act, he said where the Sanction Committee has a reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or attempted to commit, instigated or facilitate an act of terrorism or terrorism financing, or acting on behalf of or at the direction of any person, the committee may recommend to AGF to designate such person as a terrorist.
“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law,” he said.
Mr Umar then asked Mr Kaswe to address the court on whether it is lawful to designate a defendant who is standing a trial a terrorist when the case has not been concluded.
The AGF’s lawyer insisted that the respondent acted in accordance with the provisions of the law.
“So if at the end of the day, the court does not find him guilty and he is discharged of terrorism offences; what happens to the designation?” the judge asked Kaswe.
Responding, Mr Kaswe argued that under the same Act, the Sanction Committee, which meets quarterly, has the power to review the designation.
“I want my lord to critically look at the Terrorism Prevention Act carefully and juxtapose it with Section 36 of the constitution,” he said.
He adopted their processes and urged the court to dismiss Mr Mamu’s prayers against the AGF, and to hold that the AGF had the power In law to designate Manu a terrorist.
But Mr Usman disagreed with Mr Kaswe.
He argued that the reference to Terrorism Prevention Act in Mr Kaswe’s submission was in conflict with Section 36 of the constitution.
The lawyer said while the alleged terrorism charge was filed against Mr Mamu in 2023, the designation was done in 2024.
He said if the designation was done before the charge, it would have been in order, but that after the defendant had been charged, arraigned and evidence was being taken before the court, the prosecution proceeded to designate him a terrorist.
“By virtue of Section 36(5) of the constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty.
“So their dependence on Section 49 of Terrorism Prevention Act to convict a person who is standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity.
“So their reliance on Section 49 is an injury to them,” Mr Usman argued.
“Counsel, what can you say with the learner silk’s argument that, that Section 49 is in direct conflict with the Section 36 of the constitution and that it should be declared a nullity?
“This is very simple, this is a person standing trial on terrorism and you want the court to pronounce him as such and before the trial concluded, you designate hin as terrorist, what do you want the court to do again? Judge Umar had asked Mr Kaswe.
Mr Kaswe explained further that the committee constituted under the Act called, a Sanction Committee, is empowered by law to act accordingly.
He said the application to designate Mr Manu as a terrorist had come up before the charge, but Mr Usman interjected, arguing that Mr Kaswe could not make such a claim from the bar.
Speaking further, Mr Kaswe argued that Mr Manu by the committee’s recommendation “is a designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.”
“If my lord finds the applicant guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced, this time, the applicant will be a convicted terrorist,” Kaswe said.
The judge, therefore, demanded further address, particularly on Section 36 of the Nigerian constitution and Section 49 of Terrorism Prevention Act.
The judge consequently adjourned the matter until 23 February (today, Monday) for adoption of final written addresses regarding the provisions of Section 49 of the Act and Section 36 of the constitution.
The matter was further adjourned until 23 April.
culled from Premium Times Nigeria
