Court grants Nigerian govt’s plea to reopen terrorism case against suspects link to Bello Turji

The Federal High Court in Abuja has granted an application filed by the federal government to reopen a terrorism charge filed against five suspects linked to the notorious terrorist kingpin, Bello Turji.

Judge Emeka Nwite granted the application in a ruling on the motion on notice filed by the Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) seeking an order re-listing the charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/633/2024, in the cause list of the court.

Mr Nwite held that the motion, moved by the AGF’s lawyer, David Kaswe, was meritorious and accordingly granted.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the charge was struck out on 8 July by the judge after the defence counsel moved an oral application to the effect for lack of diligent prosecution.

The federal government, through the AGF, had preferred 11 terrorism charges against eight defendants, including Bello Turji, who is still at large.

The case filed on 16 December 2024 by M.B. Abubakar, the Director of the Department of Public Prosecutions of the Federation,

They include Musa Muhammed Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Bashir Abdullahi; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma.

The rest are Mr Turji, Aminu Muhammad, and Sani Lawal, charged as sixth to the eighth defendants, said to still be at large.

Charges

The suspects were alleged to have provided material services to terrorists groups led by Turji, Kachalla Halilu, Danbokolo, Lawali, Atarwatse, Buderi and others.

They were accused of procuring and supplying illicit drugs, including penta injections and cannabis plants (aka indian hemp); food items; military and police uniforms, camouflage, boots, caps and building materials for the terror groups.

They were also accused of providing bags of cement, cover zinc, bags of nails, M.M. iron rods, etc., to terrorist camps in the forests located in Zamfara, Sokoto and Kaduna states.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 17 of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

In count four, the prosecution alleged that Messrs Kamarawa, Muhammad (at large) and Lawal (at large), sometime in 2021 in Sokoto State, aided and abetted the commission of acts of terrorism by acquiring a military gun truck from Libya and supplying same to a terrorist, Kachalla Halilu, at a cost of approximately N28.5 million (28,500,000).

They were alleged to have paid for the gun truck partly in cash and partly via electronic transfer. The prosecution alleged that they “knew or had reason to believe that this vehicle would be used by Kachalla Halilu, a known terrorist, to commit acts of terrorism.”

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 18 (a) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act,” the count read in part.

In count five, the prosecution accused Messrs Kamarawa, Hashimu a.k.a Doctor, and Abdullahi, of aiding and abetting the commission of acts of terrorism in 2018 in Sokoto State, were alleged to have by providing material services, including wound care, medication, and shelter, to treat gunshot injuries sustained by Bello Turji after he led his terrorist group to attack Tungar Kolo Village in Zurmi Local Government Area of Zamfara State.

The offence is said to be contrary to Section 8 (1) (b) of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013 and punishable under the same section of the Act.

Arraignment

Four of the suspects; Musa Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu, a.k.a. Doctor; Samuel Chinedu and Lucky Chukwuma, who were arraigned on 23 December 2024 before trial judge Nwite, denied their involvement in the act.

The judge, thereafter, ordered their remand in Kuje Correctional Centre and adjourned the matter until 10 February for hearing of pending applications, including motions for the defendants’ bail.

On 14 March, the court rejected the defendants’ bail request, granted an order for witness protection and the prosecution opened it case by calling its first prosecution witness, simply identified as “ABC” for security reason.

Testimonies

The first prosecution witness, while giving his testimony in Hausa language, referred to Musa Kamarawa as his childhood friend.

The witness told the court how another notorious bandit leader, Kachalla Halilu, purchased a gun truck from Niger Republic, with the assistance of Kamarawa, to perpetrate terrorist acts in Nigeria.

After the prosecution witness gave his evidence, Mr Nwite adjourned the matter until 23 and 26 May for cross-examination and continuation of trial.

Trial stalled

However, on 23 and 26 May, the case could not go on due to the absence of the lead prosecuting counsel, Mr Kaswe, in court.

The lawyer, in a letter of adjournment, was said to have travelled outside the country for an official engagement and Mr Nwite fixed 8 July for continuation of trial.

But on 8 July, Mr Kaswe was not in court and the defence counsel made an oral application, praying the court to strike out the case for want of diligent prosecution and the judge granted the application.

Meanwhile, when the matter was called, only Mr Kaswe and A.M. Lukman, who appeared for first and second defendants (Kamarawa and Hashimu), were in court.

Mr Kaswe then told the court that the motion on notice sought an order re-listing the charge in the cause list.

The judge asked if all the lawyers to the defendants were duly served and Mr Kaswe responded in affirmative.

He argued that in line with a provision of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, he was entitled to five adjournments before the matter could be struck out.

“And going by the record of this court, the prosecution has not exhausted the time,” he said.

The judge then directed the registrar to find out from the court file if all the defendants were duly served.

It was, however, discovered that two of the defendants’ lawyers had deposed to an affidavit that they were no longer representing them.

Responding, Mr Kaswe submitted that since the lawyers were the last counsel representing the accused and they were served with the motion since 28 November, they ought to have appeared in court.

According to him, they cannot, through the bailiff of the court, tell the court that they are no longer representing the defendants.

Mr Kaswe described the lawyers’ action as “unethical,” saying it was against the rules of practice.

Mr Nwite, who agreed with Mr Kaswe’s argument, ordered him to move the motion.

Moving the motion on notice, Mr Kaswe said the application was filed on 28 November.

He said the motion was brought pursuant to Section 6(6) and 36 of the constitution and under the inherent power of the court.

He said the crux of the application for re-listing of the case was to give the prosecution the opportunity to have the criminal charge determined on its merits.

The lawyer said the prosecution already had all its witnesses and exhibits to prosecute the case.

He cited previous cases, including the Supreme Court’s decision, to back his argument.

“We have presented cogent reasons to have this matter relistsed in the interest of justice, public safety and national security.

“This is a case of terrorism that has an international dimension,” Mr Kaswe said.

He said his absence from court on 8 July was not deliberate.

According to him, the prosecution is diligent and willing to prosecute the case if the charge is re-listed.

He said the court had the power to re-list and restore the charge and order for continuation of hearing.

Mr Kaswe said the defendants would not be prejudiced by the grant of the application.

Lukman, who appeared for the 1st and 2nd defendants, did not opposed Kaswe’s application.

READ ALSO: Troops arrest notorious bandit leader in Benue – Official

The lawyer, who expressed concern that the defendants were kept in detention for nine months while the trial lasted, reminded that the case was struck out for lack of diligent prosecution.

Hence, Mr Lukman asked for a cost of N10 million against the prosecution.

Delivering the ruling, Mr Nwite held that the Federal Government’s application was meritorious.

“I have listened to the submission of the counsel for the applicant and gone through the affidavit evidence and exhibits, including the written address.

“I am aware that the defendant is not objecting to this application.

“Therefore, I am of the view and I so hold that this application is meritorious and accordingly granted.

“There is no order as to cost,” the judge ruled.

The case was consequently adjourned until 21 January 2026 for hearing.

(NAN)