Alleged terrorists’ negotiator, Tukur Mohammed Mamu
Alleged terror negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has dragged the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) to court, insisting that branding him a “terrorist” while his trial is still ongoing is unconstitutional and damaging to his fundamental rights.
Arguing before Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, Mamu’s lead counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, said the AGF’s decision flies in the face of Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees every defendant the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Usman told the court that media publications describing Mamu as a terrorist—allegedly instigated by the AGF—had been attached as exhibits. He urged the court to step in and “enforce the applicant’s fundamental rights.”
The fresh suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, lists Mamu as the applicant and the AGF as the sole respondent.
According to Usman,
> “While the Federal Government arraigned the applicant on alleged terrorism offences, it was wrong for it to go ahead and designate him as terrorist in the case.”
He added that his team had written to the AGF demanding a reversal of the designation, but “they refused,” insisting that the government’s counter-affidavit amounted to an admission of wrongdoing.
“It is legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu as a terrorist, having not been convicted by the court where he is facing trial,” Usman argued.
> “It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced. Having done that prematurely, the applicant is entitled to damages.”
But the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, pushed back forcefully. Relying on a five-paragraph counter-affidavit, he maintained that the AGF acted strictly within the law.
Kaswe told the court the key question was whether the AGF had the legal authority to designate a person as a terrorist at the material time. He said the answer lies in Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022.
Citing Section 49, he said:
> “Where the Sanction Committee has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed or facilitated terrorism, the committee may recommend to the AGF to designate such person as a terrorist. So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law.”
Justice Umar, however, pressed Kaswe on whether such power could override constitutional guarantees.
> “If at the end of the day the court does not find him guilty and he is discharged, what happens to the designation?” the judge asked.
Kaswe replied that the Act empowers the Sanction Committee—which meets quarterly—to review and possibly reverse such listings.
But Usman maintained that Section 49 cannot supersede the Constitution. He stressed that the government designated Mamu a terrorist in 2024—after filing terrorism charges against him in 2023.
> “By virtue of Section 36(5), he is innocent until proven guilty. Their dependence on Section 49 to convict a person who is standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity,” he said.
Justice Umar again challenged the AGF’s team:
> “This is very simple: this is a person standing trial for terrorism and before the trial concludes, you designate him a terrorist. What do you want the court to do again?”
Kaswe maintained that the designation simply made Mamu a “designated terrorist, not a convicted terrorist,” and that conviction would only arise if the court eventually finds him guilty.
With arguments heating up, Justice Umar directed parties to submit further written addresses, especially on the interplay between Section 36 of the Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism Act.
The case was adjourned to February 23, 2026, for adoption of final addresses.
