A Federal High Court in Kano presided by Justice Muhammad Liman has ruled that the court has jurisdiction to entertain cases bordering on the fundamental human rights of Aminu Babba DanAgundi, the Sarkin Dawaki Babba, who challenged the amendment of the Kano Emirate Law by the Kano State House of Assembly.
Respondents in the case include the Kano State government, the state House of Assembly, the speaker of the Assembly, the attorney-general and commissioner for justice, the commissioner of police, the inspector-general of police, Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), and the Department of Security Services (DSS) have challenged the court’s jurisdiction on the matter.
In an earlier sitting, the court adjourned the case filed by DanAgundi, the applicant in the case, who challenged the new Emirate Law by the Kano State House of Assembly (KNHA) as violating his fundamental human rights.
“I therefore rule that this court has the jurisdiction to listen to the case,” the judge declared, citing section 46 of the 1999 Constitution.
However, concerning the continuation of the hearing in the case after the ruling, the counsel to the respondents argued that at the last sitting, the judge stated that he would rule on the issue of jurisdiction but never mentioned that the hearing would continue after the ruling.
Furthermore, the complainant had served the respondents with a further affidavit, which they complained they had not gone through to respond. Therefore, they pleaded with the judge to fix another date for the hearing.
In response, the judge read the last paragraph of his last proceeding, which verified that he stated that the sitting was for ruling on the court’s jurisdiction in the case but never mentioned the continuation of the hearing.
The judge then fixed June 14, 2024, as the continuation date of the case, saying, “The matter is too sensitive to linger around.”
Addressing newsmen on the matter, the applicant’s counsel, Muhammad Waziri, said, “The court has ruled that it has jurisdiction for the case, and that is the business of the day. The last time we were here, the argument was on whether the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the case or not.
“Today, we have convinced the court that it has jurisdiction and we are coming back tomorrow to take other applications,” he said.
On the other hand, the counsel to the respondents, Barr Isah Ibrahim, said, “We converged and argued that the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter because it has as the primary claim the issue of chieftaincy title. In its wisdom, the court could distinguish the cases we’ve cited from the present case.
“However, the court has ruled it has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter because, based on the court’s wisdom and findings, the applicant’s fundamental rights have been breached.
“But then, however, the court’s ruling, this is the court of first instance, is not the final court. So, we will meet our clients, discuss with them, go through the ruling line by line and see whether they can appeal,” he said.
He further questioned which of the applicant’s fundamental rights was breached by the KNHA’s action.
“Which of the applicant’s rights has been breached? He is not an Emir who would have said he had been dethroned. He had been coming to the court all through, enjoying free movement.
“I don’t know where his right to movement, as he claimed, has been breached. But that is the court’s wisdom; the court felt it had jurisdiction.
“What the court is saying is to come and address me. Let’s proceed with the case because I have jurisdiction.
“So is the jurisdictional issue determined today, not any other matter? So, the substantive matter will be heard tomorrow.
“So, we will now see whether the jurisdiction alone can give the court power based on its findings to sustain the application before the honourable court,” he stated.
