The Federal High Court overseeing the case regarding the reinstatement of Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II by the Kano State Government has scheduled June 13, 2024, as the date to determine its jurisdiction over the matter.
The case was brought before the court by Aminu Babba DanAgundi, a deposed senior councilor of the Kano Emirate, who alleged that his fundamental human rights were violated when the state government removed him without his consent or proper attention.
During the recent hearing on jurisdiction, counsels representing both the plaintiff and the defendant engaged in a rigorous debate. DanAgundi’s counsel, Barrister M. A Waziri, contended that the court indeed had jurisdiction over the case, citing relevant sections of the Protection of Fundamental Human Rights. He argued that his client, the deposed Sarkin Dawaki Babba, was not accorded a fair hearing before the deposition of Emir Aminu Ado Bayero, rendering the entire process invalid.
On the contrary, counsel for Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, Barrister Muhamud A. Magaji, urged the court to reject the plaintiff’s assertion of jurisdiction. Magaji argued that the Kano State House of Assembly possessed the authority to amend, repeal, or create laws concerning emirate titles and chieftaincy affairs without needing the plaintiff’s consent.
Magaji also highlighted the inconsistency in the plaintiff’s argument, pointing out that while DanAgundi advocated for discarding the 2024 repealed law that led to Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II’s reinstatement, he insisted on upholding the 2019 repealed Emirates Council Law that facilitated the turbaning of deposed Emir Aminu Ado Bayero.
In response, Presiding Judge Justice Abdullahi Muhammad Liman clarified that the court had two pending applications to consider: the jurisdictional issue and a motion to set aside the order halting Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II’s reinstatement. He noted the withdrawal of another order of appeal by the despondent counsels.
Justice Liman then adjourned the case to June 13, 2024, to deliver a ruling on whether the court had jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.
