From Godwin Tsa, Abuja
The immediate past governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai has asked the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho, to transfer his fundamental rights enforcement suit pending before Justice R.M. Aikawa of the Kaduna division of the court to another judge over alleged gross bias, injustice and denial of fair hearing.
El-Rufai has sued the Kaduna State House of Assembly over its claim that his administration allegedly siphoned N432 billion leaving the state with huge debt liabilities. The suit filed by the ex-governor’s counsel, Abdulhakeem Mustapha, (SAN), challenged the report of the Kaduna Assembly Committee, which indicted El-Rufai for alleged corruption.
The suit in reference is marked FHC/KD/CS/55/2024, between Mallam Nasir El-Rufai V Kaduna State House of Assembly and the Kaduna State Government.
In a petition dated July 18, 2024 addressed to and received by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, yesterday, El-Rufai stated that he has lost all the confidence in the presiding judge, Justice R. M Aikawa, to continue to hear and determine the matter.
His grouse with the presiding judge is that he was completely shut out in the proceedings of July 18, 2024, wherein counsel to the respondents adopted their processes relating to their counter affidavit in the absence of his counsel as no hearing notice was issued to them, notifying them of the court’s sitting.
The petition, which was signed by Adetayo Adeyemo from the chambers of A.U Mustapha (SAN), said by proceeding to hear the matter without the attendance and appearance of the applicant smacks of extreme bias, injustice and denial of fair hearing.
The letter reads in part: “When the matter was called on July 8, 2024, S.S Umaru appeared for the applicant (El-Rufai), while Sani Katu (SAN), appeared for the 1st respondent. Sule Shuaibu the Hon. Attorney General of Kaduna State, appeared in person for the second respondent
“While our Umaru informed the court that they had been served with the processes from the second respondent and were still within time to respond to same, the learned silk for the first respondent informed the court that they had not filed any processes and that they were out of time to do son by one day. He said their processes had been filed. By agreement of counsel on record, the court adjourned the matter to July 17, 2024.
“On July 17, 2024, our principal, A.U Mustapha (SAN), appeared in court with S.S Umaru and Habib Dauda, having arrived from Lagos a day earlier, but were informed that the court would not sit. As a result, he proceeded back to Lagos. On the night of July 17, 2024, we got the information in the news that the matter was fixed for July 18, 2024. In view of this extreme short time, we caused a letter of adjournment to be written and filed in court. The said letter was filed and served on the court and all the counsel in the matter. We also copied your Lordship.
“The letter of adjournment, notwithstanding, the court went ahead and proceeded to hear the matter wherein the respondents adopted their processes and adumbrated further on the same. The applicant was not put on notice for the proceedings of July 18, 2024 as expressly explained in the letter of adjournment. Service of hearing notice in a matter is sacrosanct and our courts have held severally that every party must be put on notice before his case can be heard and this was done without putting the applicant counsel on notice.
“Equally important is the fact that the applicant was not given an opportunity to respond to the 1st respondent’s counter affidavit and written address. That by virtue of order 11 Rule 7 of the fundamental rights enforcement procedure rules 2009, the applicant has five days to respond to the counter affidavit and written address but the court went ahead and heard the matter the very day the application for extension of time was moved and granted thereby expressly shutting out the applicant from responding to the process”, the letter reads.