By Correspondent in Abuja.
Alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has filed a fundamental rights enforcement suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), challenging his designation as a “terrorist” while his terrorism trial is still ongoing.
Represented by Johnson Usman, SAN, Mamu told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the AGF’s action violates Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty.
Usman informed the court that media publications where Mamu was labeled a terrorist had been attached to the suit as exhibits. He adopted his processes and urged the court to enforce his client’s rights and award damages for the alleged unlawful designation.
In the suit, FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, Mamu is the applicant while the AGF is the sole respondent.
Usman argued that although the Federal Government is prosecuting Mamu for alleged terrorism offences, it was unlawful to designate him a terrorist during the pendency of the trial. He said the defence wrote to the AGF demanding a reversal of the designation, but received no response.
According to him, the counter-affidavit filed by the Federal Government amounts to an admission of wrongdoing.
“It is only the court that can designate a person a terrorist after conviction,” Usman argued. “My lord has that power, not the respondent. The applicant deserves damages to show that such actions are unacceptable.”
But counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, strongly opposed the application, relying on a five-paragraph counter-affidavit. Kaswe insisted that the AGF acted within the law, citing Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022.
He argued that the Act empowers the Sanction Committee, upon reasonable suspicion of terrorism-related activities, to recommend individuals for designation as terrorists, after which the AGF may act.
However, Justice Umar pressed Kaswe to clarify whether it is lawful to designate a defendant a terrorist during an active trial.
“If at the end of the trial he is found not guilty, what becomes of the designation?” the judge asked.
Kaswe replied that the Sanction Committee meets quarterly and can review or reverse designations in line with the Act.
Usman countered that the AGF’s reliance on the Terrorism Act conflicts with the constitutional presumption of innocence. He noted that the charges against Mamu were filed in 2023, while the designation occurred in 2024—after trial proceedings had begun.
“Section 49 cannot override Section 36(5) of the Constitution,” Usman argued. “Their reliance on it is unconstitutional and should be nullified.”
Justice Umar queried Kaswe further on the alleged conflict between the two legal provisions.
“This is simple. A man is standing trial for terrorism, and before the court concludes, you designate him a terrorist. What then is left for the court to decide?” the judge asked.
Kaswe maintained that Mamu is only a “designated terrorist,” not a “convicted terrorist,” and that a conviction would elevate the status.
Justice Umar directed both parties to file additional arguments specifically addressing the constitutional and statutory conflict. The case was adjourned to February 23, 2026, for adoption of final addresses.
Edited by Dada Ahmed.
