Tukur Mamu, who is accused of being a terrorist negotiator, has initiated a fundamental rights lawsuit against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF). He claims that the government acted unlawfully by branding him a terrorist during his ongoing trial.
His attorney, Johnson Usman (SAN), informed Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court in Abuja that the AGF’s actions breach Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which asserts that “a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
Usman mentioned that media reports referring to Mamu as a terrorist were included as evidence to bolster their argument.
He contended that even though the Federal Government has charged Mamu with terrorism-related offenses, it was inappropriate for them to label him a terrorist in this context.
He stated that they had reached out to the AGF requesting a reversal of the unlawful designation, but no response was received. He pointed out that the government’s counter-affidavit even acknowledged the allegations.
He argued in court that it is “legally, morally, and religiously wrong to label Mamu a terrorist” when he has not yet been convicted.
“Only the court has the authority to designate him as a terrorist after a conviction and sentencing,” he asserted. Usman emphasized that his client is entitled to damages to demonstrate that “one cannot label someone a terrorist while they are still undergoing trial. Government failed to rescue schoolgirls; they negotiated with us – Bandits disclose in new footage
However, the AGF’s attorney, David Kaswe, firmly opposed the motion. He stated that they submitted a five-paragraph counter-affidavit and maintained that the AGF acted lawfully.
Kaswe explained to the court that the central question is “whether the AGF had the authority to designate the applicant as a terrorist at the time of the designation.” He referenced Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 202.