Plateau High Court Rules State Courts Can Try Terrorism Cases, Rejects Motion Seeking Transfer of Angwa Rukuba Massacre Suspect from DSS’ Custody

The High Court of Plateau State has ruled that State High Courts have jurisdiction to try persons accused of terrorism and terrorism-related offences under the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act (TPPA) 2022.
The ruling, delivered on Tuesday by Justice Gedeliah Fwomyon, could have significant implications for the prosecution of terrorism suspects in Nigeria, where such cases have generally been associated with the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court.
Justice Fwomyon gave the ruling while determining a jurisdictional application filed by four suspects arrested by the Department of State Services (DSS) over their alleged involvement in the Easter 2026 Angwa Rukuba massacre in Plateau State.
The suspects, Isa Umar Ibrahim, Adamu Isa Alhassan, Auwalu Abubakar, also known as Auwalu Dogo, and Musa Abubakar Ibrahim, also known as Yaroro, were arrested by the DSS following the killings.
The Plateau State Government subsequently filed terrorism charges against the four men.
In their application, the suspects challenged the jurisdiction of the State High Court to hear the terrorism charges and sought, among other reliefs, their transfer from DSS custody.
However, the court rejected the application, holding that the TPPA does not prohibit State High Courts from trying terrorism-related offences.
Justice Fwomyon further held that there was nothing in the Constitution preventing State Houses of Assembly from legislating on terrorism, noting that the subject is not contained in the Exclusive Legislative List.
The court also rejected a motion by the third defendant, Auwalu Abubakar , for transfer from the custody of the DSS to seek medical attention at the Jos University Teaching Hospital (JUTH).
The judge held that, upon the suspects’ arrest by the DSS, a medical examination was conducted, and that the result declared them all medically fit for detention.
In rejecting the motion seeking the third defendant’s transfer to JUTH, he judge also held the court cannot grant a relief upon documents that are not placed before it. The defendant applicant, he stated, failed to furnish the court with the report upon which he sought the relief.
“Motion of the defendant is hereby refused and dismissed for failure to establish sufficient factual foundation upon which the relief is sought,” said the judge, even as he adjourned the matter to 15 and 21 October 2026.