Court adjourns Mamu’s suit challenging terrorist designation

By Taiye Agbaje

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by the alleged terrorist negotiator, Mr Tukur Mamu, against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) until April 23 for the adoption of written addresses.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that Mamu, in the suit, is challenging his designation as a “terrorist” by the AGF while standing trial.

The matter, which was scheduled for the adoption of written addresses before Justice Mohammed Umar, could not proceed.

The court subsequently fixed April 23 for the hearing.

Mamu, through his counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, had on November 25, 2025 told Justice Umar that the AGF’s action contravened Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.

Usman told the court that printouts of media publications in which his client was designated a terrorist were attached to their application as exhibits.

The senior lawyer adopted the processes and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by enforcing Mamu’s fundamental rights.

NAN reports that while Mamu is the applicant in the suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, the AGF is the sole respondent.

Usman argued that although the Federal Government arraigned the applicant on alleged terrorism offences, it was wrong to proceed to designate him a terrorist while the case was still pending.

According to him, “We have written to the AGF to reverse the illegal designation of the defendant as a terrorist, but they refused.”

He contended that the counter-affidavit filed by the Federal Government showed an admission of the allegation.

Usman further argued that it was legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu as a terrorist when he had not been convicted by the court where he is facing trial.

“It is the court that has the power to designate him a terrorist after he has been convicted and sentenced.

“It is only my lord who has that power and duty, not the respondent in this case.

“Having done that, the applicant is entitled to damages to teach them a lesson that you cannot designate a person undergoing trial as a terrorist,” he said.

However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, vehemently opposed Usman’s submissions.

He said that in opposition to the application, they filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit.

“We place heavy reliance on all the paragraphs in opposition to the applicant’s application,” he said.

According to Kaswe, the only question before the court is whether, at the time of designating the applicant as a terrorist, the AGF had the power to do so.

He said this was in line with Section 36(1–12) of the Constitution and the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

He argued that these provisions grant the AGF the power to designate anyone a terrorist.

Citing Section 49 of the Act, he said that where the Sanctions Committee has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, attempted to commit, instigated or facilitated an act of terrorism or terrorism financing, or acted on behalf of or at the direction of any person, the committee may recommend to the AGF to designate such a person a terrorist.

“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law,” he said.

Justice Umar then asked Kaswe to address the court on whether it was lawful to designate a defendant standing trial as a terrorist when the case had not been concluded.

The AGF’s lawyer maintained that the respondent acted in accordance with 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.

In response, Kaswe argued that under the same Act, the Sanctions Committee, which meets quarterly, has the power to review the designation.

“I urge my lord to critically examine the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act and juxtapose it with Section 36 of the Constitution,” he said.

He adopted his processes and urged the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought by Mamu and hold that the AGF indeed has the power in law to designate Mamu a terrorist.

However, Usman disagreed.

He argued that reliance on the Terrorism Act was in conflict with Section 36 of the Constitution.

The lawyer said while the alleged terrorism charge was filed against Mamu in 2023, the designation was made in 2024.

He argued that if the designation had been made before the charge was filed, it might have been proper, but that after the defendant had been charged, docked and evidence was being taken, the prosecution went ahead to designate him a terrorist.

“By virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty.

“So their reliance on Section 49 of the Terrorism Act to effectively convict a person who is standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity,” Usman argued.

Justice Umar asked Kaswe to respond to the argument that Section 49 was in direct conflict with Section 36 of the Constitution and should therefore be declared null and void.

“This is very simple. This is a person standing trial for terrorism and you want the court to pronounce him as such. Before the trial is concluded, you designate him a terrorist. What do you want the court to do again?” the judge asked.

Kaswe explained that the committee constituted under the Act, known as the Sanctions Committee, is empowered by law to act accordingly.

He said the application to designate Mamu as a terrorist had arisen before the charge was filed, but Usman interjected, arguing that Kaswe could not depose to such facts from the Bar.

Kaswe further argued that Mamu, 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, convicts and sentences him, then he will be a convicted terrorist,” Kaswe said.

Justice Umar consequently requested further addresses, particularly on Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act.

The judge adjourned the matter until February 23, 2026 for the adoption of final written addresses in respect of the provisions of Section 49 of the Act and Section 36 of the Constitution.

(NAN)