Renowned constitutional lawyer, Professor Auwalu Yadudu, has described the ruling on Kano emirate crisis as “strange and baffling”.
Justice Abdullahi Muhammad Liman of a Federal High Court in Kano had, on Thursday, dominated on the fits filed earlier than him over the Kano Emirate crisis.
A kingmaker within the former Kano emirate, Aminu Babba Danagundi, the Sarkin Dawaki Babba, had challenged the propriety of the repealed Kano Council Law which Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf used to depose the 15th Emir of Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, and reversed the standing of the emirs of Bichi, Rano, Gaya, and Karaye emirates to that of district heads, following the collapse of their emirates into Kano Emirate.
Based on the legislation, the governor had additionally re-appointed the 14th Emir of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II, because the 16th Emir of Kano.
Kano Govt points recent eviction discover to Ado Bayero
Sanusi stays Emir – Kano govt
Danagundi had requested the court docket, by his counsel, Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), to declare the legislation null and void.
While the court docket declared the actions taken by the governor as “null and void”, it acknowledged, nevertheless, that its ruling didn’t have an effect on the validity of the Kano Emirates Council (Repeal) Bill 2024, which was handed by the Kano State House of Assembly.
The growth had dashed hopes that the simmering disagreement over essentially the most applicable claimant to the throne of the Emir of Kano would finish.
Reacting to the difficulty in an interview with Daily Trust, the erudite Professor mentioned the event was not useful for the judicial course of, stressing that the choose assuming jurisdiction on the basic human rights facet and refusing the identical on the validity of the substance of the case -the Kano emirates law- has “muddled up the case, and it is very unbecoming of a judge who has now been elevated to the Court of Appeal”.
Yadudu clarified that whereas he was not accusing the choose of any impropriety, the pronouncements had been unbecoming.
“How can you say the actions taken in pursuant of a law are set aside, and then say you are not delving into the validity of the said law?” he queried.
Prof. Yadudu mentioned additional that the choose had kind of held that he lacked jurisdiction on the difficulty by transferring the case to a different choose, however nonetheless went forward to put aside the governor’s actions.
He mentioned that the ex-parte order ought to now not be of any foreign money as a result of it’s being challenged on the Appeal Court, and the choose himself admitted information of this by granting a keep of proceedings and likewise deciding to not grant an order to nullify the legislation.
“All these are avoidable. It is not helpful for the judicial process. It is strange and doesn’t speak well of the judge. The question of whether the governor’s actions came before and after the exparte order is a question of fact or evidence. It seems from the record that the order came after.”