Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the new date for adoption of final written addresses after asking counsel to further address the court on the relationship between Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. The matter had earlier come up for adoption of written addresses but could not proceed.
Mamu, through his lawyer Johnson Usman (SAN), argues that the AGF’s decision to label him a terrorist in official and media communications violates his right to presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the Constitution. He contends that it is illegal, immoral and against religious principles to brand him a terrorist before any conviction by the court where he is facing trial.
Usman told the court that he attached printouts of media reports where Mamu was described as a terrorist to support the claim. He asked the judge to enforce his client’s fundamental rights by ordering the AGF to withdraw the designation and apologise.
Opposing the suit, counsel to the AGF, Abdulhamid Kaswe, insisted that Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Act empower the government to designate individuals as terrorists based on security and intelligence assessments. He urged the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought and affirm that the AGF acted within the law.
Justice Umar said he would only decide the matter after carefully weighing the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing and presumption of innocence against the statutory powers granted under the Terrorism Act. He then adjourned the case to 23 April for the parties to adopt their final addresses.
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 to 23 April 2026. The case is challenging his designation as a terrorist while he is still standing trial on terrorism related charges.
Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the new date for adoption of final written addresses after asking counsel to further address the court on the relationship between Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022. The matter had earlier come up for adoption of written addresses but could not proceed.
Mamu, through his lawyer Johnson Usman (SAN), argues that the AGF’s decision to label him a terrorist in official and media communications violates his right to presumption of innocence under Section 36(5) of the Constitution. He contends that it is illegal, immoral and against religious principles to brand him a terrorist before any conviction by the court where he is facing trial.
Usman told the court that he attached printouts of media reports where Mamu was described as a terrorist to support the claim. He asked the judge to enforce his client’s fundamental rights by ordering the AGF to withdraw the designation and apologise.
Opposing the suit, counsel to the AGF, Abdulhamid Kaswe, insisted that Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Act empower the government to designate individuals as terrorists based on security and intelligence assessments. He urged the court to dismiss all the reliefs sought and affirm that the AGF acted within the law.
Justice Umar said he would only decide the matter after carefully weighing the constitutional guarantee of fair hearing and presumption of innocence against the statutory powers granted under the Terrorism Act. He then adjourned the case to 23 April for the parties to adopt their final addresses.
Be the first to leave a comment