Abuja, Nigeria – October 22, 2025 – The Federal High Court in Abuja has once again rejected a bail application for Tukur Mohammed Mamu, a detained alleged terrorist negotiator, citing diligent prosecution efforts and ongoing national security concerns. The ruling, delivered on Wednesday by Justice Mohammed Umar, marks the third time Mamu’s request for bail has been denied since his arraignment in March 2023. The court, however, directed the Department of State Services (DSS) to ensure Mamu receives proper medical care and access to his family under supervision.
Justice Umar, in his ruling, acknowledged Mamu’s health complaints but maintained that his medical condition did not warrant release from custody. The judge emphasized that the DSS must facilitate Mamu’s treatment at a health facility of his choice, stating, “The DSS is directed to take him to an appropriate health facility where he would be adequately attended to.” The court also ordered that Mamu be allowed supervised visits from family members, balancing security concerns with humanitarian considerations.
The decision hinged on the court’s assessment of the prosecution’s conduct. Justice Umar noted that bail is typically granted when the prosecution fails to demonstrate diligence in pursuing a case. However, in Mamu’s case, the Federal Government’s legal team was described as “meticulous and consistent” in handling the proceedings. “One of the conditions for granting bail is where the prosecution is not diligent,” the judge said. “Since the prosecution in this case has been diligent, the application for bail cannot be granted.”
Mamu, a Kaduna-based publisher and alleged negotiator for terrorist groups, was arrested on September 7, 2022, at Cairo International Airport by Egyptian security authorities. He was subsequently handed over to Nigeria’s DSS for further investigation and prosecution. Mamu faces a 10-count charge related to terrorism financing and other offenses, stemming from his alleged role in facilitating ransom negotiations for the release of hostages from the March 2022 Abuja–Kaduna train attack.
The train attack, which occurred on March 28, 2022, was a high-profile incident that shocked the nation. Armed assailants, believed to be members of Boko Haram, derailed a passenger train traveling between Abuja and Kaduna, abducting dozens of passengers. The attack resulted in multiple casualties and heightened fears about the escalating insecurity in Nigeria’s northwest and north-central regions. According to court filings, Mamu was nominated by the kidnappers to act as an intermediary between the terrorists and the families of the abducted passengers. The prosecution alleges that Mamu collected ransom payments, confirmed the amounts, and ensured their delivery to the terrorists, purportedly for personal financial gain.
The charges against Mamu include terrorism financing, aiding and abetting terrorist activities, and other related offenses. Prosecutors claim that his actions not only prolonged the ordeal of the hostages but also contributed to the financial empowerment of terrorist groups, posing a significant threat to national security. The case has drawn widespread attention due to its implications for Nigeria’s ongoing battle against insurgency and the complex dynamics of ransom negotiations in kidnapping cases.
Since his arraignment on March 21, 2023, Mamu has remained in DSS custody, with the court rejecting his bail applications on multiple grounds. The first and second bail denials, like the most recent, cited the severity of the charges and the risk of Mamu interfering with the judicial process or fleeing if released. The court’s consistent stance reflects the government’s prioritization of national security in cases involving alleged terrorist collaborators.
The ongoing trial has sparked debates about the legal and ethical complexities of ransom negotiations in Nigeria. Kidnapping for ransom has become a pervasive issue, with terrorist groups and criminal gangs exploiting vulnerabilities in the country’s security architecture. Negotiators like Mamu often operate in a gray area, acting as intermediaries to secure the release of hostages while navigating accusations of complicity or profiteering. Critics argue that such negotiations inadvertently fund terrorism, while others contend that intermediaries play a critical role in saving lives when government intervention is limited.
Mamu’s legal team has maintained his innocence, arguing that he acted in good faith to facilitate the release of hostages and that his detention is an overreach by authorities. They have also raised concerns about his health, citing deteriorating conditions in custody as a basis for seeking bail. However, the court’s ruling on October 22 reaffirmed that these concerns, while valid, do not outweigh the risks associated with granting bail.
The case has also highlighted the challenges of addressing terrorism-related offenses within Nigeria’s judicial system. The prosecution’s diligence, as noted by Justice Umar, reflects efforts to build a robust case against Mamu, potentially setting a precedent for how similar cases are handled. The court’s directive to ensure medical care and family access indicates an attempt to balance human rights considerations with the imperatives of national security.
As the trial progresses, the case is expected to shed further light on the inner workings of ransom negotiations and their impact on Nigeria’s security landscape. The court has adjourned for further hearings, with Mamu remaining in DSS custody pending the next session. The outcome of the trial could have far-reaching implications for how Nigeria addresses terrorism financing and the role of intermediaries in hostage situations.
The Federal High Court’s decision underscores the delicate balance between justice, security, and humanitarian concerns in Nigeria’s fight against terrorism. As the nation grapples with rising insecurity, cases like Mamu’s highlight the complexities of dismantling terrorist networks while upholding the rule of law. For now, Mamu’s fate remains in the hands of the judiciary, with the DSS tasked with ensuring his well-being as the legal process unfolds.
