How Tukur Mamu Allegedly Took ₦50m and Planned a Bandit Website

DSS tells court Tukur Mamu took ₦50m from bandits and advised online expansion. Trial adjourned to 23 Feb 2026 as Mamu sues AGF over ‘terrorist’ label.

Atlantic Post

November 26, 2025

3–4 minutes

Abuja-Kaduna Train Attack, DSS Testimony, Kidnap For Ransom, Nigerian Security, Terrorism Law, Tukur Mamu

A Department of State Services witness told the Federal High Court in Abuja on Tuesday that alleged terrorist negotiator Tukur Mamu received ₦50 million from “Shugaba”, the leader of the gang behind the 28 March 2022 Abuja–Kaduna rail massacre and abductions.

The same witness said the militants sought Mamu’s help to create an online presence. They even asked him to teach them how to open a website for their activities.

The testimony was given by the sixth prosecution witness. It is now part of a wide criminal case against Mamu. Mamu is a Kaduna-based publisher and self-styled mediator. He is accused of receiving ransoms and handling terrorist funds. He also obstructed the Chief of Defence Staff negotiation committee. Furthermore, he exchanged messages with an organised extremist spokesperson.

The witness interpreted audio recordings allegedly captured during Mamu’s interrogation in Egypt before he was repatriated to Nigeria.

Mamu has consistently denied criminality. This week, he filed a fundamental rights suit against the Attorney-General of the Federation. He argued that designating him a “terrorist” while he is on trial breaches the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Defence counsel told Justice Mohammed Umar the AGF must not pre-empt a court verdict. The judge adjourned the trial until 23 February 2026. This is for the adoption of final written addresses. The addresses will include arguments on Section 49 of the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act. They will also cover Section 36 of the Constitution on fair hearing.

Context and comparisons
The Abuja–Kaduna attack remains one of the most traumatic incidents of the bandit era. Armed assailants bombed tracks, opened fire and abducted scores of passengers.

Independent reporting and human rights monitors recorded at least eight deaths on 28 March 2022. They also documented dozens of abductions. Many hostages were released only after protracted negotiations.

Kidnap for ransom has become an industry in Nigeria. National statistics and investigative studies point to an epidemic scale of abduction and ransom payments.

The National Bureau of Statistics Crime Experience survey and subsequent investigations estimated more than two million kidnapping incidents in a 12-month window to April 2024. They documented trillions of naira changing hands as ransom.

Recent sector studies reveal that ransom payments reach hundreds of millions to low billions of naira annually. This exposes how criminal finances sustain armed groups.

This pattern of mass abduction mirrors earlier Boko Haram crimes. These include the 2014 Chibok seizure of 276 schoolgirls. They also include the 2018 Dapchi abduction of about 110 girls. Those events showed how kidnappers couple spectacle with negotiation to extract concessions or payments and to amplify their causes.

The DSS allegation involves a mediator being paid and asked to create a web platform for a militant group. This illustrates the sophisticated hybrid of physical violence and information operations now at play.

Implications for policy and justice
If the court accepts the DSS evidence, it will deepen legal scrutiny of intermediaries used during hostage crises. The evidence suggests that a negotiator took money directly from a militant leader. It also claims that the negotiator urged families to be approached outside official channels.

It raises urgent questions for the federal negotiation architecture. Bypassing the Chief of Defence Staff committee risks fracturing strategy. It also creates parallel pipelines for illicit funds that fuel further violence.

At law, the case will hinge on three main factors. First is the quality of the audio interpretations. Second is the provenance of the alleged ₦50 million payment. Third is the competing constitutional protections asserted by the defence.

The dispute over the AGF’s media designation of Mamu as a “terrorist” will need the court to weigh public safety interests. The court must also consider the presumption of innocence. It will assess the potential life-long reputational damage if the label is applied before conviction.

The Mamu proceedings will be closely watched. The trial focuses on more than just one defendant. It investigates how negotiation, ransom economies, and digital outreach have converged. This convergence sustains armed groups in Nigeria.

The court will reconvene on 23 February 2026 to consider final written arguments. The judgment will set a precedent for how intermediaries and state labels are treated in terrorism prosecutions.

Additional reporting by Suleiman Adamu, Senior National Security Correspondent.