In the midst of the ongoing Kano Emirate crisis, several senior lawyers, including Samuel Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, Chief (Dr) Richard Oma Ahanauogho, SAN, and Mr Israel Olorundare, SAN, have declined to comment on the recent ruling by a Federal High Court in Kano that removed the 16th Emir of Kano, Muhammadu Sanusi II, from office.
The lawyers cited the pendency of the substantive case before the Court of Appeal and the unavailability of the full ruling as reasons for their silence.
However, another senior lawyer, speaking on the condition of anonymity, expressed concerns that politicians in the country are using the Kano Emirate case to set the judiciary up for destruction and create a political crisis in the state.
Also Read: Emir Sanusi II Speaks on Kano Emirate Tussle, Emphasizes Unity and History Preservation
The lawyer questioned the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court in chieftaincy matters, citing a Supreme Court ruling that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in respect of chieftaincy matters.
Renowned constitutional lawyer Professor Auwalu Yadudu described Justice Liman's ruling as unbecoming, stating that the judge appeared to have contradicted himself on the issue of jurisdiction.
Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, criticized the judicial orders in Kano State, labeling them an embarrassment to the judiciary. He urged higher courts to resolve the political and judicial confusion in Kano and Rivers states.
The Kano State House of Assembly passed the Kano Emirates Council Law (repeal bill) 2024, effectively repealing the Kano Emirate Council Law 2019 and paving the way for the reinstatement of Sanusi II as the sole Emir of Kano.
A Federal High Court judge reportedly issued an ex parte order to halt Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf from enforcing the new law until a substantive suit on the issue is resolved.
The Kano Emirate crisis highlights the complex interplay between the judiciary, traditional institutions, and political interests in Nigeria.
As the legal battle continues, the case raises important questions about the role of the judiciary in chieftaincy matters and the potential for political interference in the judicial process.
