“The Licence Was Not Expired At The Time Of Arrest” — Tukur Mamu’s Defence Challenges Firearms Charge

*As Court Reserves Judgment Until January 27

The Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed January 27, 2027, for judgment in the 17-count criminal charge filed by the Federal Government against Tukur Mamu, the alleged negotiator involved in securing the release of passengers abducted during the March 28, 2022, Abuja-Kaduna train attack.

Justice Mohammed Umar fixed the date on Monday, November 2, 2026, after counsel for the prosecution and defence adopted their final written addresses and presented their arguments on whether the Federal Government had established the allegations against the defendant beyond reasonable doubt.

Mamu, who has been standing trial over allegations bordering on terrorism financing, unlawful possession of firearms and money laundering, has consistently denied the charges brought against him.

The defendant was initially arraigned on a 10-count charge before the prosecution amended the information to include additional offences, bringing the total to 17 counts.

At the resumed proceedings on Monday, Mamu’s counsel, Johnson Usman, SAN, informed the court that the matter had been scheduled for the adoption of the parties’ final written addresses.

The senior lawyer told the court that the defendant’s final written address was dated July 22 and filed on July 23, while the defence’s reply on points of law was dated and filed on October 30, 2026.

Usman adopted both processes and urged the court to acquit and discharge his client on all the charges, maintaining that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

“We adopt these two addresses and we humbly urge this honourable court to graciously acquit and discharge the defendant on all the counts preferred by the Federal Government as same, having not been proven in any manner,” he submitted.

The defence counsel specifically challenged the prosecution’s handling of evidence relating to a firearm allegedly recovered from Mamu’s residence, insisting that the failure to produce the relevant licence raised serious doubts about the allegation of unlawful possession.

Usman argued that the defence had repeatedly demanded the production of the firearm licence to establish that Mamu possessed the weapon lawfully at the time of his arrest.

During the submissions, Justice Umar sought clarification from the senior lawyer concerning the validity of the document.

“You mean the expired licence?” the judge asked.

Responding, Usman maintained that the licence had not expired as of the time Mamu was arrested.

He argued that although the prosecution had taken custody of both the firearm and the licence, its alleged failure to produce the document before the court should be resolved in favour of the defendant.

According to the defence counsel, the validity of the licence at the time of the arrest was central to determining whether Mamu could properly be convicted of unlawful possession of the firearm.

He illustrated his argument by comparing the circumstances with a vehicle owner whose driving documents had expired while the vehicle remained parked at home.

“My lord, if my vehicle licence expires and my car is parked at home, the VIO cannot arrest me,” Usman submitted.

“We have asked for this on three consecutive times but they failed to produce it in court,” he added.

The defence consequently urged the court to resolve the issue in Mamu’s favour, arguing that the prosecution had failed to eliminate reasonable doubt concerning the firearm allegation.

However, the prosecution disagreed with the defence’s position.

David Kaswe, an Assistant Director at the Federal Ministry of Justice, who appeared for the Attorney-General of the Federation on behalf of the Federal Government, maintained that the firearm and its licence had already been tendered and admitted during the proceedings.

Kaswe told the court that the documents were presented when the prosecution’s fifth witness, an exhibit keeper, testified.

“My Lord, the record of this court will show that we have tendered the licence together with the arms on the day the PW-5, an exhibit keeper, was led on evidence,” he stated.

The prosecution counsel explained that the Federal Government had subsequently applied for the firearm and other exhibits to be kept in safe custody and that the court granted the application.

He therefore rejected the defence’s argument that the relevant evidence had not been produced.

Kaswe further informed the court that the prosecution’s final written address was dated September 18 and filed on September 21, 2026.

Adopting the process, he maintained that the evidence presented by the Federal Government was sufficient to establish the allegations against Mamu.

The prosecution consequently urged Justice Umar to find the defendant guilty and convict him on the charges.

“We respectfully adopt our written address as our oral submission and argument in proof of the case against the defendant and we urge my lord to agree with us that we have discharged the burden of proof placed before us and to convict the defendant as charged,” Kaswe submitted.

The disagreement over the firearm licence formed part of the parties’ competing arguments concerning whether the prosecution had proved the offences alleged in the amended charge.

During the proceedings, Mamu’s lawyer also expressed appreciation to the State Security Service (SSS) for complying with an earlier court order granting members of the defendant’s family access to him.

Usman acknowledged what he described as improved cooperation by the security agency and commended its leadership for facilitating the visits.

“My lord, I thank the current regime of DSS for the access given to the defendant’s family.

“When they do well, we should praise them. My sincere gratitude to the DG DSS,” he stated.

After hearing the submissions of both parties, Justice Umar reserved judgment until January 27, 2027.

The criminal proceedings arose from the Federal Government’s investigation into Mamu’s alleged involvement in negotiations with terrorists responsible for the March 28, 2022, attack on a passenger train travelling between Abuja and Kaduna.

During the attack, several passengers were killed, while others were abducted and held for ransom.

Mamu subsequently became involved in negotiations relating to the release of some of the captives.

However, the Federal Government accused him of exceeding the role of an intermediary and allegedly providing support to members of the terrorist organisation.

He was arrested on September 7, 2022, by Egyptian security officials at Cairo International Airport and subsequently returned to Nigeria.

Following investigations, the Federal Government instituted criminal proceedings against him before the Federal High Court in Abuja.

The charge, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/96/2023, initially contained 10 counts bordering principally on terrorism-related offences.

However, the prosecution subsequently amended the charge to include allegations of money laundering and unlawful possession of firearms.

On June 1, 2026, Mamu was re-arraigned before Justice Umar on the amended 17-count charge.

He pleaded not guilty to all the counts.

In the first count, the Federal Government alleged that Mamu provided support to the Boko Haram terrorist group in Kaduna around March 28, 2022.

The prosecution accused him of encouraging members of the terrorist group to boycott the committee established by the Federal Government under the Chief of Defence Staff to negotiate the release of the abducted train passengers.

According to the charge, the alleged action was intended to strengthen Mamu’s position as an intermediary in the negotiation, payment, receipt and delivery of ransom funds by families of the abducted victims.

In the second count, the prosecution alleged that Mamu undermined and obstructed the activities of the Chief of Defence Staff Committee established to facilitate negotiations for the release of the hostages.

The third count accused him of receiving $120,000 in ransom payments on behalf of the terrorist group from relatives of the abducted passengers.

The allegation was brought under Section 21(3)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

The prosecution also alleged that Mamu exchanged voice-note communications relating to acts of terrorism with Baba Adamu, identified in the charge as a spokesperson for Boko Haram.

The Federal Government further accused him of engaging in transactions involving funds and property allegedly connected with terrorism.

In counts six and seven, the prosecution alleged that sums of $269,200 and ₦25,690,500 found in the defendant’s possession were connected with terrorist activities.

The prosecution also relied on Section 23(1)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, in relation to allegations of dealing in terrorist property.

In counts 11, 12 and 13, Mamu was accused of dealing in additional funds allegedly connected with terrorism, comprising 1,840 Indian rupees, 1,700 Egyptian pounds and 115 United Arab Emirates dirhams.

The prosecution maintained that the foreign currencies were recovered during investigations into his activities.

Counts 14 and 15 concerned allegations of money laundering involving ₦25,690,500 and $269,200 allegedly found in his possession.

The Federal Government also accused Mamu of unlawfully possessing a Delta Magnum pump-action firearm without a valid licence.

In another count, the prosecution alleged that he possessed approximately 47 cartridges of ammunition without the required authorisation.

The firearm-related allegations were brought under Section 3 of the Firearms Act, Cap. F28, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, and were said to be punishable under Section 28 of the same Act.

Mamu denied the allegations.

During the trial, the Federal Government called seven witnesses in support of its case before closing the prosecution’s evidence.

The defendant subsequently opened his defence on April 23, 2026, and testified as the sole defence witness.

Following the amendment of the charge and his re-arraignment on June 1, the prosecution continued its cross-examination of the defendant before the proceedings reached the final-address stage.

The parties’ submissions have now placed before the court competing arguments concerning the allegations of terrorism financing, the circumstances of the hostage negotiations, the ownership and legal status of the firearm, and the prosecution’s reliance on the financial evidence presented during the trial.

While the Federal Government maintains that it has discharged the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction, Mamu’s defence insists that the allegations remain unproven and that unresolved doubts in the evidence should be determined in his favour.

Under Section 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, a person charged with a criminal offence is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

The prosecution therefore bears the burden of establishing the essential ingredients of the offences beyond reasonable doubt.

With both parties having concluded their final submissions, Justice Umar is expected to determine on January 27, 2027, whether the evidence establishes any of the 17 counts against Mamu or whether he should be acquitted and discharged.

Post Title: “The Licence Was Not Expired At The Time Of Arrest” — Tukur Mamu’s Defence Challenges Firearms Charge By Papers Nigeria.