Alleged Bandit Negotiator Mamu Challenges AGF For Labelling Him ‘Terrorist’ During Trial

Alleged terrorist negotiator, Tukur Mamu, has filed a fundamental rights suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF), arguing that the government acted unlawfully by designating him a terrorist amidst his trial.

Mamu’s lawyer, Johnson Usman (SAN), told Justice Mohammed Umar of the Federal High Court, Abuja, that the AGF’s action violates Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that “a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”

Usman said newspaper publications in which Mamu was described as a terrorist were attached as exhibits to support their case.
He argued that although the Federal Government has charged Mamu with terrorism offences, “it was wrong for it to go ahead and designate him as a terrorist in the case.”

He added that they wrote to the AGF asking him to reverse the “illegal designation,” but no action was taken.

According to him, the government’s counter-affidavit even “showed an admission of the allegation.”

Usman told the court it was “legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu as a terrorist” when he has not been convicted.

“It is the court that has the power to designate him as a terrorist after he must have been convicted and sentenced,” he said, insisting that his client deserves damages to show that the government cannot label someone on trial a terrorist.
But the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, opposed the application, saying a five-paragraph counter-affidavit had been filed.

He argued that the AGF acted within the law, citing Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Prohibition Act, 2022.

Kaswe noted that under Section 49, the Sanction Committee may designate any person if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are involved in terrorism. According to him, “the respondent acted within the provisions of the law.”

Justice Umar questioned whether it was lawful to label someone facing trial a terrorist before conviction.

“So if at the end of the day the court did not find him guilty and he is discharged, what happens to the designation?” he asked. Kaswe responded that the committee meets quarterly and can review the decision.
Usman countered that the government’s reliance on Section 49 conflicts with Section 36 of the Constitution.

He said Mamu was charged in 2023 but designated a terrorist in 2024, stressing that “by virtue of Section 36(5), he is innocent until proven guilty,” and insisting that the designation is unlawful and should be nullified.

Justice Umar asked the AGF’s lawyer to specifically address whether Section 49 contradicts the Constitution. Kaswe maintained that the Sanction Committee acted appropriately, noting that Mamu is a designated terrorist, not a convicted one.

The judge ordered both sides to further address the constitutional question and adjourned the matter to February 23, 2026, for the adoption of final written addresses.