Court Adjourns Tukur Mamu’s Fundamental Rights Suit Against AGF Over Terrorist Label

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday 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.

According to reports, Mamu is challenging his designation as a “terrorist” by the AGF while his trial is ongoing.

The case, which came up before Justice Mohammed Umar for the adoption of written addresses, could not proceed and was subsequently adjourned to a new date.

Mamu’s counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, had earlier argued that the AGF’s action violated Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty by a court.

He told the court that media publications describing his client as a terrorist were attached to their application as exhibits and urged the court to enforce Mamu’s fundamental rights.

According to the lawyer, although the Federal Government had arraigned Mamu on terrorism-related charges, it was wrong to designate him a terrorist while the case was still before the court.

He added that a request had been made to the AGF to reverse the designation but was declined.

Usman maintained that it was legally, morally, and religiously wrong to label Mamu a terrorist without a court conviction, insisting that only the court has the authority to make such a declaration after trial and sentencing. He argued that the applicant was entitled to damages for the alleged violation of his rights.

Counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, opposed the application, stating that the Federal Government had filed a counter-affidavit and relied on relevant legal provisions.

He argued that the AGF acted within the law, citing Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, which he said empower authorities to designate individuals as terrorists based on reasonable suspicion.

Kaswe told the court that where the Sanctions Committee has reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism or its financing, it may recommend such designation to the AGF. He maintained that the respondent acted in line with the law.

Justice Umar asked whether it was lawful to designate a defendant a terrorist while trial proceedings were ongoing. Kaswe insisted the action was legal and noted that the committee could review the designation if the defendant was later discharged.

Usman, however, argued that reliance on the Terrorism Prevention Act conflicted with Section 36 of the Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence.

He pointed out that Mamu was charged in 2023 but designated a terrorist in 2024 while trial was ongoing, describing the move as unlawful.

After hearing arguments from both parties, Justice Umar adjourned the matter for further address, particularly on the constitutional provisions and the Terrorism Prevention Act.

The case was consequently fixed for April 23, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.