Court Delivers Judgment in Alleged Terrorism Financing Case Against Tukur Mamu – THISDAYLIVE

The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday mounted January 27, 2027, for judgment in a cost filed by the Federal Government towards Tukur Mamu, alleged terrorists’ negotiator throughout the Abuja-Kaduna prepare assault hostages in 2022.

Justice Mohammed Umar mounted the date after the Federal Government’s lawyer, David Kaswe, and Mamu’s counsel, Johnson Usman (SAN), adopted their last written addresses and offered their arguments for and towards the case.

Mamu, who was arrested on September 7, 2022 by the Egyptian safety officers on the Cairo International Airport, was earlier arraigned on a 10-count cost bordering on terrorism financing.

However, the prosecution amended the counts by bringing in extra offences, together with illegal possession of firearms with out legitimate licence and cash laundering expenses.

When the case was referred to as on Monday, Usman knowledgeable the courtroom that the case was scheduled for adoption of events’ last written addresses.

The senior lawyer stated the the defendant’s last written tackle was dated July 22 however filed July 23.

“Our reply on factors of legislation is dated October 30 and filed similar day.

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

Usman argued that although the defence staff had persistently demanded the licence of the rifle allegedly recovered from Mamu’s residence, the lawyer stated the prosecution had failed to supply the licence in courtroom.

“You mean the expired licence?” Justice Umar requested Usman.

Responding, Usman submitted that their competition was that the licence was not expired as on the time Mamu was arrested.

He stated regardless that the prosecution took custody of the arms and the licence, their failure to supply the lience in courtroom had raised severe problems with doubt.

He, subsequently, urged the courtroom to resolve the problem in favour of his consumer.

“My lord, if my car licence expires and my automotive is parked at house, the VIO can not arrest me.

”We have requested for this on three consecutive instances however they failed to supply it in courtroom,” he stated.

But Kaswe, as assistant director, who appeared for the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) on behalf of the Federal Government, disagreed with Usman’s submission.

The prosecution lawyer recalled that the licence and the rifle had already been tendered earlier than the courtroom.

“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 added.

Kaswe reminded that after the prosecution utilized for a protected preserve of the rifle and different reveals, the courtroom granted their request.

The lawyer, who adopted their last written tackle dated September 18, stated the processs was filed on September 21.

“We respectfully adopt our written address as our oral submission and argument in prove 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,” he prayed.

Usman, nevertheless, thanked the Department of State Services (DSS) for granting entry to Mamu’s relations in accordance with courtroom order.

“My lord, I thank the present regime of DSS for the entry given to the defendant’s household.

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

After listening to the attorneys, Justice Umar mounted January 27, 2027, for judgment.

Mamu, the only real defendant, was re-arraigned on June 1 on a 17-count cost.

He, nevertheless, pleaded not responsible after the counts had been learn to him and the prosecution commenced its cross-examination of the accused, who had earleir opened his defence and testified as the only real defence witness.

Mamu opened his defence on April 23 after the Federal Government closed its case by calling seven witnesses in the continuing trial.

In depend one of many cost, marked; FHC/ABJ/CR/96/2023, the defendant was alleged to have, someday about March 28, 2022 in Kaduna, gave assist to the Boko Haram terrorist group.

He was alleged to have instigated the terroror group to boycott the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Committee arrange by the Federal Government to barter the discharge of the hostages (victims) of the Abuja-Kaduna prepare assault to boost his act because the negotiator for the fee, receipt and supply of ransom fee from the households of the hostages.

In depend two, he was alleged to have undermined and obstructed the CDS Committee set as much as negotiate the discharge of the hostages of the assault.

Count three accused him of receiving ransom funds in the sum of $120 million on behalf of the terrorist group from households of victims of the assault opposite to Section 21(3)(a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022.

He was additionally alleged to have dedicated an offence preparatory to or in furtherance of act of terrorism when he exchanged voice word communications in relation to acts of terrorism with Baba Adamu, the Boko Haram spokesperson.

He was stated to have dedicated an offence of dealing in terrorist property opposite to Section 23 (1) (a) of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition).

The defendant was equally alleged to be dealing in terrorist funds in the sum of 1,840 Indian Rupees, 1,700 Egyptian Pounds and 115 UAE Dirham in counts 11, 12 and 13, which had been discovered in his possession.

Mamu was additionally accused of illegal possession of firearms when he had in his possession about 47 cartridges (ammunitions) and not using a legitimate licence someday in March 28, 2022.

The offence, the prosecution stated, contravened the provisions of Section 3 of the Fire Arms Act CAP F.28 LFN, 2004 and punishable underneath Section 28 of the Fire Arms Act, CAP F.28 LFN, 2004. (NAN)