Kano State Public Complaints and Anti Corruption Commission lacks judicial powers to investigates Emir of Kano Muhammadu Sanusi 11, and the district head of Gwale, Alhaji Munnir Sunusi Danburam tells court.
Munir and two others are challenging the powers and competence of the state public complaint and anti-corruption commission (PCACC) to investigate the finances of the Kano emirate council.
Gezawa, a counsel on the side of the plaintiffs, said yesterday that though the matter was scheduled for hearing, it could not go on because of “some oversight on the part of all the counsel in respect of the matter.
“On the last adjourned date on November 14, 2019, the court ordered that fresh copies of all the processes be exchanged because there was a joinder of additional parties. But parties were unable to comply with that order to file fresh processes bearing the names of the new defendants, so the matter could not go on and was further adjourned”, Gezawa said.
Counsel representing PCACC, Usman Umar Fari, confirmed that the plaintiffs applied to join the emirate council and another person, and the application was granted, adding that plaintiffs wanted the court to declare PCACC incompetent and lacking powers to even investigate the emirate’s funds.
He said, “Note that the emir himself is not challenging the power of the commission to investigate him or the emirate. In a separate case, the emir is simply applying for a judicial review of the interim report of PCACC which recommended his temporary suspension to allow for full investigations into the finances of the emirate after he was indicted in the preliminary investigation.”
Fari said the emir was challenging the report and recommendation of PCACC on the basis of lack of fair hearing. So, he wants the report quashed.
Even the emir’s suit seeking judicial review could not proceed on Thursday because of some irregularities in the way it was initiated.
Because the procedure requires such applications for certiorari to be initiated through leave in an ex-parte motion, the plaintiffs had approached the court to be granted leave. But the court asked them to put the other parties on notice. Plaintiffs said they found that strange and therefore refused. They just proceeded with the case without obtaining the required leave of court.
“Now the matter was transferred from court 1 to court 10, they applied for adjournment to regularize their position, and it was adjourned to 30 January”, Fari explained.