The alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit challenging his designation as a “terrorist” by the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) while he is still standing trial.
Mamu’s counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja that the AGF’s action contravenes Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty.
Usman informed the court that printouts of media publications where his client was designated as a terrorist had been attached to the application as exhibits. He adopted the processes and urged the court to enforce Mamu’s fundamental rights.
The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that while Mamu is the applicant in the fresh suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, the AGF is the sole respondent.
The senior lawyer argued that although the Federal Government had arraigned the defendant on alleged terrorism offences, it was wrong for it to go ahead to designate him a terrorist. He said they had written to the AGF requesting a reversal of the “illegal designation” but received no response.
Usman added that the counter affidavit filed by the Federal Government amounted to an admission of the applicant’s claims. He said it was legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu a terrorist without a conviction.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him a terrorist after conviction and sentencing. Having done this prematurely, the applicant is entitled to damages, to teach the authorities that you cannot designate someone a terrorist while he is still undergoing trial,” he submitted.
However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, opposed Usman’s arguments. He informed the court that they filed a five-paragraph counter affidavit in opposition and relied on all its contents.
Kaswe said the issue before the court was whether the AGF had the legal power to designate the applicant a terrorist at the time it was done. He cited Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, which he said empowered the AGF to make such a designation.
Referring specifically to Section 49, he said the Sanctions Committee may recommend to the AGF the designation of any person reasonably suspected of committing, attempting to commit, instigating or facilitating terrorism or terrorism financing.
“So the respondent acted within the law,” he insisted.
Justice Umar then asked Kaswe whether it was lawful to designate someone who is already standing trial a terrorist when the case has not been concluded. The judge also asked what would happen to the designation if Mamu were later discharged and acquitted.
Kaswe replied that the Sanctions Committee reviews designations quarterly and could revisit the matter.
He urged the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought by Mamu and uphold that the AGF acted within the law.
But Usman disagreed, arguing that the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention Act were in conflict with Section 36 of the Constitution. He said while the terrorism charge was filed in 2023, the designation was made in 2024, after the defendant had been arraigned, docked and evidence taken.
He told the court that designating a defendant a terrorist mid-trial violated his constitutional presumption of innocence.
Justice Umar pressed Kaswe further on the argument that Section 49 of the Act conflicts with Section 36 of the Constitution. “This is simple. This is a person standing trial and before the trial is concluded, you designate him a terrorist. What then is left for the court to do?” the judge asked.
Kaswe maintained that the designation was made by the Sanctions Committee under the Act and that Mamu was a “designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.”
Justice Umar directed both parties to file further addresses, particularly on the relationship between Section 36 of the Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act.
The judge adjourned the matter to February 23, 2026 for adoption of final written addresses.