THE Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday adjourned the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by alleged terrorist negotiator, Mr Tukur Mamu, against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), to April 23 for the adoption of final written addresses.
News Point Nigeria reports that Mamu is challenging his designation as a “terrorist” by the AGF while he is still standing trial on terrorism-related charges.
The matter, which was slated for adoption of written addresses before Justice Mohammed Umar, could not proceed as scheduled and was subsequently fixed for April 23 for further hearing.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, Mamu, through his counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, is seeking the enforcement of his fundamental rights, arguing that the Federal Government acted unlawfully by designating him a terrorist before the conclusion of his trial.
Usman had earlier told the court that the AGF’s action contravened Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), which guarantees the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a court of law.
The senior advocate informed the court that media publications where Mamu was described as a terrorist were attached as exhibits to support the application.
“It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced,” Usman argued.
“It is only my lord that has the power and duty, and not the respondent in this instant case.”
According to him, while the Federal Government had arraigned Mamu on alleged terrorism offences, it was improper and unconstitutional to go further and officially designate him a terrorist during the pendency of the trial.
He disclosed that a formal letter had been written to the AGF requesting a reversal of the designation, but the request was ignored.
Usman maintained that the action was legally, morally and religiously wrong, stressing that his client was entitled to damages for the alleged violation of his rights.
“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 said.
However, counsel to the AGF, David Kaswe, strongly opposed the application.
Kaswe told the court that the Federal Government filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit in opposition and relied heavily on its contents.
According to him, the only issue before the court was whether the AGF had the legal power to designate the applicant as a terrorist at the time the action was taken.
He cited Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, arguing that the provisions empower the AGF, acting on the recommendation of a Sanction Committee, to designate any person reasonably suspected of involvement in terrorism or terrorism financing.
“Where the Sanction Committee has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed, attempted, instigated or facilitated an act of terrorism, it may recommend to the AGF to designate such a person as a terrorist,” Kaswe submitted.
“So the respondent acted within the provisions of the law.”
He further explained that the designation did not amount to a conviction, describing Mamu as a “designated terrorist and not a convicted terrorist.”
“If my lord finds the applicant guilty of the offences charged, convicted and sentenced, then he becomes a convicted terrorist,” he added.
Kaswe also stated that the Act provides for periodic review of such designations by the Sanction Committee, which meets quarterly.
Justice Umar, however, pressed the AGF’s counsel on the constitutional implications of the designation.
“So 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.
He also queried whether it was lawful to designate a defendant as a terrorist while he is still undergoing trial, without a final judicial determination.
“This is very simple,” the judge remarked. “This is a person standing trial on terrorism, and you want the court to pronounce him as such and before the trial is concluded, you designate him as a terrorist — what do you want the court to do again?”
In response, Kaswe maintained that the Sanction Committee acted within statutory powers granted under the Terrorism Prevention Act.
However, Usman countered that any reliance on Section 49 of the Act must be subjected to the supremacy of the Constitution.
He argued that the terrorism charges were filed against Mamu in 2023, while the designation occurred in 2024 — after the defendant had already been arraigned and trial proceedings commenced.
“By virtue of Section 36(5) of the Constitution, he is innocent until proven guilty,” Usman insisted.
“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.”
He further contended that any statutory provision inconsistent with Section 36 of the Constitution must give way, in line with constitutional supremacy.
After hearing submissions from both sides, Justice Umar demanded further arguments specifically addressing the interplay between Section 36 of the Constitution and Section 49 of the Terrorism Prevention Act.
The court subsequently adjourned the matter to April 23 for the adoption of final written addresses.