Court Adjourns Mamu’s Suit Challenging Terrorist Designation
Last update: February 23, 2026
Disclaimer: This website may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. We only recommend products or services that we personally use and believe will add value to our readers. Your support is appreciated!
Court adjourns Tukur Mamu’s rights suit against AGF to April 23...
The Federal High Court in Abuja has adjourned the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to April 23 for the adoption of written addresses.
Mamu is contesting his designation as a “terrorist” by the AGF while his criminal trial is still ongoing.
The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, was scheduled for adoption of written addresses before Justice Mohammed Umar but could not proceed, leading to the adjournment.
Through his counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, Mamu argued that the AGF’s action violates Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes an accused person innocent until proven guilty.
Usman told the court that media publications describing his client as a terrorist were attached as exhibits in support of their application.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced by a court,” he said.
“It is only my lord that has the power and duty, and not the respondent in this instant case.
“Having done that, the applicant is entitled to damages and to teach them a lesson that you cannot designate a person a terrorist who is undergoing a trial.”
He maintained that it was both legally and morally wrong to label Mamu a terrorist before the conclusion of his trial.
However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, opposed the suit, arguing that the Federal Government acted within the provisions of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act.
CBI News reports that Kaswe said the respondent filed a counter-affidavit relying on Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, which empower the Sanction Committee to recommend designation where there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism.
“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law,” he submitted.
He added that under Section 49, the committee may recommend designation where a person is suspected of committing or facilitating acts of terrorism or terrorism financing.
Kaswe stressed that Mamu is “a designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.”
“If my lord finds the applicant guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced, this time, the applicant will be a convicted terrorist,” he said.
Justice Umar queried whether it was lawful to designate a defendant still on trial as a terrorist before the case is concluded.
“So if at the end of the day, the court did not find him guilty and he is discharged of terrorism offences, what happens to the designation?” the judge asked.
Kaswe responded that the Sanction Committee, which meets quarterly, has the authority under the Act to review such designations.
He urged the court to dismiss the application and affirm the AGF’s authority to designate Mamu.
But Usman insisted that reliance on Section 49 of the Act conflicts with Section 36 of the Constitution.
“By virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty,” he argued.
“So their dependence on Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act to convict a person who is standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity.”
Justice Umar subsequently directed both parties to further address the court on the relationship between Section 36 of the Constitution and Section 49 of the Act before adjourning the matter to April 23 for adoption of final written addresses.
