A Plateau State High Court yesterday 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.

This is especially with the trial of terrorism suspects, until now believed to be the exclusive responsibility of the federal high courts.

Ruling on a jurisdiction motion brought by four suspects arrested by the DSS over their alleged involvement in the Easter 2026 Angwa Rukuba massacre, Justice Gedeliah Fwomyon said the TPPA did not forbid high courts from trying terrorism suspects.

He also held that nothing in the Constitution barred Houses of Assembly from legislating on terrorism, as the issue is not on the exclusive legislative list.

The DSS arrested the quartet of Isa Umar Ibrahim, Adamu Isa Alhassan, Auwalu Abubakar, aka Auwalu Dogo, and Musa Abubakar Ibrahim, aka Yaroro, in the wake of the massacre. Thereafter, the state government filed terrorism charges against the men.

However, in the course of the trial, counsel to the defendants argued that under the TPPA, a state high court lacked the jurisdiction to try persons accused of terrorism.

Ruling on the defence counsel’s objection, the trial judge held that though the TPPA is a federal legislation, the law does not prohibit a state high court from prosecuting matters contained in the Act.

Similarly, Justice Fwomyon held that the suspects could also be tried under the Plateau State Penal Code, as it is not inconsistent with the TPPA, adding that both the national and state assemblies can validly legislate on terrorism, which is not in the exclusive legislative list.

The court also rejected an application by the third defendant, Auwalu Abubakar, for transfer from the DSS custody to seek medical attention at the Jos University Teaching Hospital (JUTH).

The judge held that a medical examination conducted by the DSS upon the suspects’ arrest found them medically fit for detention, adding that the applicant failed to furnish the court with the report on which he sought the relief.

Consequently, the judge refused and dismissed the motion “for failure to establish sufficient factual foundation upon which the relief is sought.” He then adjourned the matter until October 15 and 21, 2026.