Yemi Kosoko in Jos
A Plateau State High Court, has ruled that State High Courts possessed the constitutional authority to try terrorism and terrorism‑related offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act, 2022, a decision that could reshape how terrorism prosecutions are conducted across Nigeria.
Justice Gedeliah Fwomyon delivered the landmark ruling while determining a preliminary objection filed by four suspects arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) over their alleged roles in the Easter 2026 Angwan Rukuba massacre in Jos.
The defendants Isa Umar Ibrahim, Adamu Isa Alhassan, Auwalu Abubakar (Auwalu Dogo) and Musa Abubakar Ibrahim (Yaroro) were charged with terrorism by the Plateau State Government.
During the proceedings, defence counsel argued that terrorism offences fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court, and contended that the TPPA 2022, being a federal law, could not be enforced through a State High Court.
Justice Fwomyon, however, disagreed, saying although the TPPA was federal legislation, nothing in the Act expressly barred State High Courts from trying offences created under it.
He further ruled that terrorism was not listed in the Exclusive Legislative List, meaning State Houses of Assembly retained the constitutional competence to legislate on the matter.
The judge also affirmed that the Plateau State Penal Code was not inconsistent with the TPPA, adding that both federal and state legislatures might validly enact laws addressing terrorism within their respective jurisdictions.
He, therefore, dismissed the defendants’ objection and affirmed the court’s jurisdiction to proceed with the trial.
In a separate ruling, the court rejected a motion by the third defendant, Auwalu Abubakar, seeking transfer from DSS custody to the Jos University Teaching Hospital (JUTH) for medical treatment.
Justice Fwomyon noted that DSS medical examinations conducted after the suspects’ arrest certified them fit for detention, adding that the defendant failed to present any medical report or documentary evidence to support his request.
“Motion of the defendant is hereby refused and dismissed for failure to establish sufficient factual foundation upon which the relief is sought,” the judge ruled.
The case was adjourned to October 15 and 21, 2026 for continuation of trial.