Alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit challenging the Federal Government’s decision to designate him as a terrorist while his criminal trial is still ongoing.
Mamu’s counsel, Johnson Usman (SAN), told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) acted in violation of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty.
Usman informed the court that media publications referring to Mamu as a terrorist were attached as exhibits, describing them as unlawful and prejudicial.
He urged the court to enforce his client’s rights and grant the reliefs sought.
According to the senior lawyer, although the Federal Government has arraigned Mamu on terrorism charges, it was wrong for the AGF to independently designate him a terrorist while the court has not delivered judgment.
“We have written to the AGF to reverse the designation, but they refused,” Usman said.
He argued that the counter-affidavit filed by the FG was “an admission” that the designation was made while Mamu’s trial was active.
Usman maintained that it was “legally, morally, and religiously wrong” to designate a defendant on trial as a terrorist.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him a terrorist after conviction. Not the respondent,” he said.
He argued that the action entitles Mamu to damages, insisting it was necessary to “teach them a lesson.”
However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, opposed the application and defended the government’s action.
Kaswe told the court that the AGF acted fully within the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, which empower the Sanction Committee to recommend individuals for terrorist designation.
“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law,” he said.
Justice Umar pressed the AGF’s counsel to explain whether the law allows the government to label a defendant a terrorist before conclusion of trial.
“If at the end of the day, the court does not find him guilty, what happens to the designation?” the judge asked.
Kaswe responded that the Sanction Committee, which meets quarterly, can review and withdraw such designations.
He also distinguished “designated terrorist” from “convicted terrorist.”
Usman countered that the Terrorism Act cannot override Section 36 of the Constitution, stressing that the charge against Mamu was filed in 2023, long before the 2024 designation.
“By virtue of Section 36(5), he is innocent until proven guilty. Their reliance on Section 49 is an injury to them,” Usman argued.
Justice Umar directed both parties to file additional written addresses, specifically comparing: Section 36 of the Constitution, and Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act.
He adjourned the matter to February 23, 2026 for the adoption of final written addresses.
© 2025 Naijaonpoint, a division of NOP Media Inc. Contact us via [email protected]