The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Federal Government’s application to reopen a terrorism charge against five suspects connected to the notorious terrorist leader, Bello Turji.
Justice Emeka Nwite granted the application on Thursday, ruling on a motion on notice filed by the Attorney‑General of the Federation (AGF) seeking an order to re‑list the charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/633/2024, on the court’s cause list.
Naijaonpoint reports that the charge was previously struck out on July 8, 2025, when the defence counsel successfully moved orally for its dismissal for lack of diligent prosecution.
The Federal Government had initially filed an 11‑count terrorism charge against eight defendants, including Turji, who remains at large.
The original charge, filed on December 16, 2024, by the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions, M.B. Abubakar, named Musa Muhammed Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu a.k.a. Doctor, Bashir Abdullahi, Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma as the first five defendants.
While Bello Turji, Aminu Muhammad and Sani Lawal — all at large — were listed as the sixth to eighth defendants.
They were accused of providing material services to terrorist groups, including supplying illicit drugs, food items, military and police uniforms, camouflage gear and construction materials to terror camps in Zamfara, Sokoto and Kaduna States.
In one count, Kamarawa, Muhammad and Lawal were alleged to have aided terrorist acts in 2021 in Sokoto State by procuring a military gun truck from Libya and supplying it to a terror leader, Kachalla Halilu, for approximately N28.5 million.
The prosecution said the payment was made partly in cash and partly by electronic transfer, and the vehicle was used to commit acts of terrorism, contrary to Section 18(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
In another charge, the prosecution alleged that Kamarawa, Hashimu and Abdullahi provided wound care, medication and shelter to treat injuries sustained by Turji following a terror attack on Tungar Kolo Village in Zurmi Local Government Area of Zamfara in 2018, an offence under Section 8(1)(b) of the Act.
Four suspects, Kamarawa, Hashimu, Chinedu and Chukwuma, were arraigned on December 23, 2024, before Justice Nwite, where they denied involvement and were remanded at Kuje Correctional Centre.
The matter was initially adjourned to February 10, 2025, for the hearing of pending applications, including bail motions. On March 14, the court denied bail and ordered witness protection before the prosecution began its case.
The first prosecution witness, identified as PW‑1, testified in Hausa, recounting how Kamarawa allegedly assisted Halilu to procure a gun truck for terrorism.
Subsequent trial dates in May 2025 were stalled due to the absence of the lead prosecuting counsel, after which July 8 was fixed for continuation.
However, on that date, the prosecution was absent, and the defence successfully moved to strike out the case — until this most recent application.
At Thursday’s hearing, the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, argued the motion was filed on November 28 and anchored on Sections 6(6) and 36 of the 1999 Constitution and the court’s inherent powers.
He said the prosecution had witnesses and exhibits ready and sought the opportunity to have the charges determined on merits, stressing that terrorism with an international dimension warranted relisting.
“We have presented cogent reasons to have this matter relisted in the interest of justice, public safety and national security. This is a case of terrorism that has an international dimension,” Kaswe said.
He dismissed suggestions that his absence in July was deliberate, asserting the prosecution was diligent and prepared to proceed if the charge was relisted.
The lawyer for the first and second defendants, A.M. Lukman, did not oppose the relisting application but raised concerns about the defendants being held for nine months during the trial and asked the court to award N10 million in costs against the prosecution.
Delivering his ruling, Justice Nwite held that the Federal Government’s application was meritorious.
“I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the applicant and gone through the affidavit evidence and exhibits, including the written address. I am aware that the defendant is not objecting to this application,” the judge said.
“Therefore, I am of the view, and I so hold, that this application is meritorious and accordingly granted. There is no order as to cost,” he ruled.
The matter has been adjourned until January 21, 2026, for the hearing to continue.