You are here: HomeNews2021 09 24Article 480832

General News of Friday, 24 September 2021

Source: www.sunnewsonline.com

Banishment: Deposed Kano Emir, Sanusi, knows fate Nov 30

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

The Abuja division of the Federal High Court has fixed November 30 to deliver judgment in a suit filed by the deposed Emir of Kano, Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, challenging his banishment to Awe, Nasarawa State.

Sanusi, a former Governor of the Central Bank (CBN), was deposed after a resolution by the Kano State Executive Council, on March 9, 2020, on allegations of insubordination.

The deposed emir, who was subsequently banished to Awe, was confined until he was released on March 13, 2020, by an interim order issued by Justice Anwuli Chikere of the Federal High Court, Abuja.

Justice Chikere fixed the judgment date for November 30, after taking final arguments from lawyers representing parties in the fundamental rights enforcement suit.

Respondents in the suit, marked: FHC/ABJ/CS/357/2020 are the Inspector General of Police (IGP), the Director-General of the State Security Service (SSS), Attorney General (AG) of Kano State and the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF).

Sanusi’s lead lawyer, Abubakar Mahmoud (SAN), in his final submission, told the court that the case was not a chieftaincy matter, because his client was not challenging his deposition.

Mamoud said his client’s complaint was about the alleged violation of his fundamental rights in relation to the manner he was shabbily treated after he was deposed.

“This is not a chieftaincy matter. The applicant (Sanusi) is not challenging the respondents’ action regarding his removal as Emir of Kano, but the way he was bundled to Abuja and banished to a remote location,” Mahmoud said.

He added that it is not in doubt that Sanusi, as a prominent citizen of this country, was shabbily treated in the manner he was bundled to Abuja and subsequently banished to a remote location.

Mamoud faulted the respondents’ challenge to the Abuja court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that no law supports the position that where rights violation occurs across several jurisdictions, one cannot approach a court in any of the jurisdictions.

He argued that it was clear from the way his client was treated that his rights were violated, and as such, he is entitled to seek protection from the court.

Mahmoud urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by the ex-emir in his suit.

Responding, lawyer to the IGP, Victor Okoye, argued otherwise.

He faulted the competence of the suit and queried the court’s jurisdiction to hear it.

Okoye, in challenging the jurisdiction of the court, noted that the instrument conveying the ex-emir’s banishment was authored and endorsed by an official of the Kano State Government in Kano State.

He argued that the appropriate venue for Sanusi to seek redress for the alleged violation of his rights was a court in Kano State.

Okoye urged the court to either strike the case out or dismiss it.

Lawyer to the DG of the SSS, Godwin Agbadua, argued in similar manner and also challenged the court’s jurisdiction.

Agbadua urged the court to strike out the suit on the grounds that the alleged rights violation occurred in Kano, adding that there is a Federal High Court in Kano, before which Sanusi could seek redress.

Join our Newsletter!