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 to April 23 for adoption of written addresses.
Naija News understands that Mamu is challenging his designation as a “terrorist” by the AGF while he is still standing trial.
The matter, slated for the adoption of written addresses before Justice Mohammed Umar, could not proceed and was subsequently adjourned.
Mamu, in the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, is the applicant, while the AGF is the sole respondent.
Through his counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, Mamu had earlier argued that the AGF’s action contravened Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty.
Usman told the court that media publications designating his client as a terrorist were attached as exhibits to their application.
He said, “It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced by a court.
“It is only my lord that has the power and duty, and not the respondent in this instant case.
“Having done that, the applicant is entitled to damages and to teach them a lesson that you cannot designate a person a terrorist who is undergoing a trial.”
He further argued that it was legally and morally wrong to label Mamu a terrorist before the conclusion of his trial.
However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, opposed the application, stating that the Federal Government acted within the law.
He said the respondent filed a counter-affidavit and placed reliance on Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022.
According to him, the law empowers the Sanction Committee to recommend designation where there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism.
“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law,” Kaswe said.
He added that under Section 49, the committee may recommend designation where a person is suspected of committing or facilitating acts of terrorism or terrorism financing.
Kaswe maintained that Mamu was “a designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.”
“If my lord finds the applicant guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced, this time, the applicant will be a convicted terrorist,” he said.
Justice Umar asked the AGF’s counsel to clarify whether it was lawful to designate a defendant who is still on trial as a terrorist before the conclusion of the case.
“So if at the end of the day, the court did not find him guilty and he is discharged of terrorism offences, what happens to the designation?” the judge queried.
Kaswe responded that the Sanction Committee, which meets quarterly, has the power to review such designation under the Act.
He urged the court to dismiss Mamu’s application and hold that the AGF has the legal authority to designate him.
But Usman insisted that reliance on Section 49 of the Act conflicts with Section 36 of the Constitution.
“By virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty,” he argued.
“So their dependence on Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act to convict a person who is standing trial is unlawful and should be declared a nullity.”
Justice Umar subsequently demanded further addresses on the interplay between Section 36 of the Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act before adjourning the matter to April 23 for adoption of final written addresses.
