KEY POINTS

• The Abuja Federal High Court adjourned Tukur Mamu’s lawsuit challenging his terrorist designation until 23 April.
• His lawyers argue the label violates constitutional presumption of innocence since his criminal trial is still ongoing.
• The federal government insists the law allows pre-conviction designation based on suspicion, pending court outcome.

The Federal High Court in Abuja has postponed the fundamental rights enforcement suit filed by Tukur Mamu, who is challenging his designation as a terrorist by Nigeria’s Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF).

The court fixed 23 April for the adoption of final written addresses after the matter, initially scheduled for hearing on Monday, could not proceed.

Mr Mamu is simultaneously standing trial before Justice Mohammed Umar over alleged terrorism-related offences stemming from his interactions with suspected militants following the 2022 Abuja–Kaduna train attack.

A prosecution witness from the State Security Service previously testified that the leader of the armed group allegedly offered Mr Mamu ₦50 million as a share of ransom proceeds.

He has remained in SSS custody since his arrest on 7 September 2022 over what authorities described as suspicious links to the attackers. The train assault reportedly killed at least eight people and left dozens kidnapped for months.

Core Dispute: Can Government Label a Defendant a Terrorist Before Conviction?

At the centre of the lawsuit is Mr Mamu’s argument that being officially labelled a terrorist while his criminal trial is ongoing violates his constitutional right to be presumed innocent.

His lawyer, Senior Advocate Johnson Usman, told the court the designation breaches Section 36(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. He argued that only a court has the legal authority to declare someone a terrorist after conviction and sentencing.

The defence also claimed media publications showing the designation were attached as evidence and that the government ignored requests to withdraw what they described as an “illegal” label.

Opposing the application, government counsel David Kaswe insisted the AGF acted within the law. He cited provisions of Nigeria’s terrorism legislation that empower a sanctions committee to recommend individuals for designation if there are reasonable grounds to suspect involvement in terrorism or related financing.

According to him, such designation does not equal conviction but is a preventive legal classification subject to periodic review.