Court adjourns Tukur Mamu’s fundamental rights suit against AGF

The matter, which was scheduled for the adoption of written addresses today before Justice Mohammed Umar, could not proceed.he matter was subsequently fixed for April 23 by the court.

Mamu, through his counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, had, on Nov. 25, 2025, told Justice Umar that the AGF’s action contravened Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, which presumes a defendant innocent until proven guilty by the court.

Usman told the court that the printout of publications in the media where his client was designated as a terrorist had been attached to their application as exhibits.

The senior lawyer adopted the processes and urged the court to grant their reliefs by enforcing Mamu’s fundamental rights.

NAN reports that while Mamu is the applicant in the fresh suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/713/2024, the AGF is the only respondent.

Usman said that while the Federal Government arraigned the applicant/defendant on alleged terrorism offences, it was wrong for it to go ahead and designate him as a terrorist in the case.

According to him, we have written to AGF to reverse the illegal designation of the defendant as a terrorist, but they refused.He argued that the counter-affidavit filed by the Federal Government against the suit showed an admission of the allegation.

Usman argued that it was legally, morally and religiously wrong to designate Mamu as a terrorist, having not been convicted by the court where he is facing trial.

“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 said.

However, AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, vehemently opposed Usman’s submission.

He said that, in opposition to the application, they filed a five-paragraph counter-affidavit.

“We place heavy reliance on all the paragraphs in opposition to the applicant’s application,” he said.

According to Kaswe, the only question before the court is whether, at the time of designating the applicant as a terrorist, the AGF has the power to do so.

This, he said, is in line with Section 36(1 to 12) and the provisions of Sections 49 and 50 of the Terrorism Prevention and Provision Act, 2022.