Tukur Mamu Drags AGF to Court Over Terrorist Designation
Alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has instituted a fundamental rights action against the Attorney‑General of the Federation (AGF) before the Federal High Court, Abuja, challenging the legality of his designation as a terrorist while his criminal trial is still pending.
Represented by Johnson Usman, SAN, the applicant contends that the AGF’s action violates Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the presumption of innocence until conviction. Counsel submitted that media publications branding Mamu a terrorist were annexed as exhibits to demonstrate the prejudicial effect of the designation.
Usman argued that although the Federal Government has preferred terrorism charges against his client, it was unlawful to proceed to designate him a terrorist prior to conviction. He noted that a formal request was made to the AGF to reverse the designation, but no remedial action was taken. He further maintained that the government’s counter‑affidavit amounted to an admission of the impugned conduct.
According to him, “it is legally, morally, and religiously indefensible to designate an accused person as a terrorist before conviction,” stressing that only a competent court, upon conviction and sentence, possesses the authority to make such a declaration. He urged the court to award damages to vindicate the principle that no person undergoing trial should be so designated.
Opposing the application, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, argued that the designation was lawful and within statutory powers. He relied on Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022, which empower the Sanction Committee to recommend designation where reasonable grounds exist to suspect involvement in terrorism. Kaswe submitted that the respondent acted squarely within the provisions of the law.
Justice Mohammed Umar queried whether it was proper to designate a person on trial as a terrorist before judgment, asking: “If at the end of the day the court does not find him guilty and he is discharged, what becomes of the designation?” Kaswe responded that the Sanction Committee meets quarterly and retains the power to review such decisions.
In reply, Usman insisted that reliance on Section 49 of the Act is inconsistent with Section 36 of the Constitution. He pointed out that Mamu was charged in 2023 but designated a terrorist in 2024, in clear violation of the presumption of innocence. He urged the court to declare the designation a nullity.
Justice Umar directed parties to further address the constitutional question of whether Section 49 of the Terrorism Act can stand against Section 36 of the Constitution. The matter was adjourned to 23 February 2026 for adoption of final written addresses.
