During the hearing, Kaswe informed the court that the defendants and their legal teams were once again absent, marking the third consecutive time they had failed to attend proceedings. He noted that while a bench warrant had been issued for their arrest, law enforcement agencies had been unable to locate the suspects. Citing Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015, Kaswe urged the court to allow the trial to proceed in absentia, a request Justice Nwite ultimately granted. The case was subsequently adjourned to April 13 for further proceedings.
The five suspects—Musa Muhammed Kamarawa, Abubakar Hashimu (also known as “Doctor”), Bashir Abdullahi, Samuel Chinedu, and Lucky Chukwuma—are facing terrorism charges for allegedly providing material support to Bello Turji and other terrorist factions operating in Zamfara, Sokoto, and Kaduna states. The charges, filed in December 2024, accuse the defendants of supplying illicit drugs, military and police uniforms, and construction materials to terrorist groups. Additionally, they are alleged to have facilitated the acquisition of a military gun truck from Libya for the notorious bandit leader Kachalla Halilu, a transaction reportedly worth N28.5 million.
The case has faced numerous delays since its inception. Initially struck out in July 2025 due to the prosecution’s failure to proceed diligently, the charges were later reinstated in December 2025 after the Federal Government successfully argued for the case to be relisted. Despite this, the trial has been hampered by logistical challenges, including the absence of key legal representatives and the defendants’ continued evasion of arrest.
One of the most critical testimonies in the case came from a protected witness, identified only as “ABC” for security reasons. The witness, who testified in Hausa, revealed that Musa Kamarawa had been a childhood friend and had played a direct role in facilitating the purchase of the gun truck used by Halilu’s group. This testimony was intended to strengthen the prosecution’s case, but subsequent hearings were postponed due to the lead prosecutor’s unavailability.
The charges against the defendants are extensive, detailing their alleged involvement in various acts of terrorism. In one count, Kamarawa, Hashimu, and Abdullahi are accused of providing medical treatment and shelter to Bello Turji after he sustained injuries during an attack on Tungar Kolo Village in Zamfara. Another charge alleges that the group supplied building materials, including cement and iron rods, to terrorist camps across northwestern Nigeria. These actions, according to the prosecution, violate multiple provisions of the Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act 2013.
Legal experts have noted that the court’s decision to proceed with an in absentia trial reflects the challenges of prosecuting terrorism cases in Nigeria, where suspects often evade capture or operate from remote locations. The move also underscores the judiciary’s willingness to adapt legal frameworks to ensure accountability, even in the face of logistical hurdles. However, some observers have raised concerns about the potential implications for due process, particularly if the defendants remain unaware of the proceedings or are unable to mount a defense.
The case against the five suspects is part of a broader effort by Nigerian authorities to dismantle terrorist networks in the country’s northwest, where banditry and kidnappings have become increasingly rampant. Bello Turji, the alleged mastermind behind many of these activities, remains at large, along with two other co-defendants—Aminu Muhammad and Sani Lawal. Their continued evasion highlights the difficulties security forces face in apprehending high-profile militants.
As the trial progresses, the prosecution will need to present compelling evidence to secure convictions, particularly given the absence of the accused. The use of protected witnesses and digital evidence, such as transaction records for the gun truck purchase, may play a crucial role in establishing guilt. Meanwhile, the defense, whenever represented, is expected to challenge the admissibility of certain testimonies and argue against the validity of an in absentia trial.
The adjournment to April 13 provides additional time for law enforcement to locate the defendants, though the likelihood of their appearance remains uncertain. If the trial proceeds without them, it could set a precedent for future terrorism cases in Nigeria, reinforcing the government’s stance that evasion will not prevent judicial accountability.
This case also raises broader questions about Nigeria’s counterterrorism strategies, particularly the effectiveness of legal measures in deterring militant activities. While the prosecution of lower-level facilitators is a step forward, the persistence of figures like Turji and Halilu suggests that more comprehensive security and intelligence operations are needed to address the root causes of banditry and terrorism in the region.
For now, the Federal High Court’s ruling stands as a significant development in a complex and protracted legal battle, one that will be closely watched by legal analysts, security agencies, and human rights advocates alike. The outcome could influence future prosecutions and shape the judicial response to terrorism in Nigeria for years to come.
