Alleged terrorist negotiator Tukur Mamu has filed a fundamental rights suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), arguing that the government acted unlawfully by labeling him a terrorist while his trial is still ongoing.
His lawyer, Johnson Usman (SAN), told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the AGF’s action violates Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that “a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
Usman said media publications where Mamu was described as a terrorist were attached as exhibits to support their case.
Usman argued that although the Federal Government has charged Mamu with terrorism offences, “it was wrong for it to go ahead and designate him as a terrorist in the case.”
He said they wrote to the AGF asking him to “reverse the illegal designation,” but no action was taken. According to him, the government’s counter-affidavit even “showed an admission of the allegation.”
He told the court it was “legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu as a terrorist” when he has not been convicted.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced,” he said. Usman insisted his client deserves damages to show that “you cannot designate a person a terrorist who is undergoing trial.”
But the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, strongly opposed the application. He said they filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit and argued that the AGF acted within the law.
Kaswe told the court that the key issue is “whether, at the time of designating the applicant as a terrorist, the AGF has the power to do so.”
He cited Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, saying these provisions give the AGF authority to designate anyone as a terrorist. Quoting Section 49, he said the Sanction Committee may recommend a designation if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, attempted to commit, instigated or facilitated an act of terrorism.
According to him, “the respondent acted within the provisions of the law.”
Justice Umar pressed Kaswe on whether it was lawful to label someone on trial a terrorist before judgment.
“So if at the end of the day the court did not find him guilty and he is discharged, what happens to the designation?” he asked.
Kaswe replied that the committee meets quarterly and can review such decisions.
Usman countered that the government’s reliance on Section 49 conflicts with Section 36 of the Constitution. He noted that Mamu was charged in 2023 but designated a terrorist in 2024.
“By virtue of Section 36(5), he is innocent until proven guilty,” he said, arguing that using the Act to designate someone already standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity.
Justice Umar asked Kaswe to respond directly to the claim that Section 49 contradicts the Constitution.
Kaswe insisted the Sanction Committee acted properly and stressed that Mamu is a designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.
The judge ordered both sides to further address the court on the constitutionality of Section 49 of the Act versus Section 36 of the Constitution.
He adjourned the case to February 23, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.