From Godwin Tsa Abuja

The Kano Emirate Council has been thrown into a legal conundrum following the recent Federal High Court Judgment on the emirate tussle, that voided the appointment of Muhammadu Sanusi II as the 16th Emir of Kano and the declaration by the Kano State government that Sanusi remains the emir of Kano.
Justice Abdullahi Liman of the Kano division of the Federal High Court had ruled that the appointment of Sanusi as emir of Kano was null and void because the state government failed to obey the court order restraining it from taking further action on the new emirate council law.
The judge described Governor Abba Yusuf’s speech during the presentation of the reappointment letter to Sanusi as a road to anarchy, saying that if a court order cannot be respected despite evidence of service, then the government was heading to chaos.
He voided all the actions taken by the governor after the court order, including the appointment of Sanusi as Emir, and ordered all parties in the case to maintain the status quo.

Highlights of judgment
Justice Liman in his judgment ordered all parties to maintain status quo, meaning no new actions or changes should be taken or made by parties pending the resolution of the case.

Stay of proceedings
The court equally made an order staying further proceedings, meaning the current legal actions and any enforcement of previous rulings are put on hold to await the outcome of an appeal by the respondents.

Transfer of case
Justice Liman in his judgment transfered the case to another court within the Kano division of the Federal High Court by virtue of his elevation to the Court of Appeal.

Void actions taken after interim order
The judgment has voided all actions that were taken after the interim order that was granted by the court. This includes any actions related to the Emirate that were in contempt of the court’s previous orders.

Implications
The implication of the judgment is that the Kano State Emirate Law 2024 that led to Aminu Ado Bayero’s removal remains valid because it was enacted before the interim order, meaning that the legal machinery that deposed Aminu Ado Bayero is still in force.

Sanusi’s enthronement voided
The court in it’s judgment voided the enthronement of Muhammadu Sanusi II simply because the exercise took place after the interim order, and it amounted to contempt of the court’s directive.

Vacuum in Kano Emirates
The judgment has foisted a situation where neither Ado Bayero nor Sanusi II is legally recognized as the Emir. This is because, although Aminu Ado Bayero was legally deposed, however, the enthronement of Sanusi II has been voided by the court on the reasons that it was done in contempt of the interim order of the court, thereby effectively leaving the Emirship stool vacant.

The controversies
Since the judgment was dished out, there are divergent opinions among lawyers and stakeholders as to the true position of the court pronouncement vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of both the Federal High Court and that of the judge.

Jurisdiction
The law is trite that jurisdiction is the life wire of a case without which any decision taken by a court, no matter highly sound is abinitio, null and void.
A strong argument here borders on whether the Federal High Court has powers to entertain chieftaincy matters and whether by virtue of his elevation to the Court of Appeal, Justice Liman is still clothed with jurisdiction to sit as a judge of the Federal High Court.

Legal precedents
Although Section 396(7) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA),2015, allows a judge elevated to the court of appeal to sit over a matter at a high court, the section is contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court.
The section reads: “Notwithstanding the provision of any other law to the contrary, a judge of the High Court who has been elevated to the Court of Appeal shall have dispensation to continue to sit as a high court Judge, only for the purpose of concluding any partly heard criminal matter pending before him at the time of his elevation, and shall conclude the same within a reasonable time, provided that this section shall not prevent him from assuming duty as a Justice of a Court of Appeal” (Section 396(7)).
In the case of FRN Vs Orji Kalu, Justice Mohammed Idris who was elevated to the court of appeal in June 2018, had on December 5, 2019 sentenced Kalu to 12 years in prison.
Not withstanding that he was issued with a fiat on July 8, 2019 by Zainab Bulkachuwa, former president of the court of appeal, to enable him conclude the trial, the seven-member panel of justices at the apex court held that the judgment of the trial court is a nullity on grounds that Idris (the trial judge) lacked the jurisdiction to hear the case.
The apex court held that Idris who had been elevated to the court of appeal as at the time of judgment lacked powers to preside over a matter at the federal high court.
In a case between Ogbuanyinya & 5 Ors V. Obi Okudo & 3 Ors (1979), the apex court nullified the judgment delivered by Nnaemeka-Agu on June 17, 1977, on grounds that he had already been elevated to the court of appeal.
“The case was in abeyance during the civil war period and resurfaced thereafter in the High Court of Anambra State in 1976 before Nnaemeka-Agu, J. (as he then was), with 1st and 2nd defendants reported dead. Nnaemeka-Agu, J. (as he then was then was) delivered judgment, which was incompetent as he was then functus officio, having been appointed sometime in 1977 to the Federal Court of Appeal,” the apex court ruled.
In a similar decision, the supreme court also voided judgment delivered by Anthony Iguh in the case of Ourline LTD v. SCC Nig. Ltd v. Universal Insurance Ltd.
Iguh, who was the former chief Judge of Anambra State, had been handling the case at the Anambra State High court.
However, he was elevated straight to the supreme court (skipping the court of appeal) before the adjourned date of June 4, 1993, when the case was to come up.
Iguh presided over the case and passed a verdict on July 20, 1993. The judge argued that he had not been sworn into office as at the time judgment was delivered.
In voiding his judgment, the apex court held that Iguh lost the jurisdiction to deliver judgment in the case having been issued the appointment as a supreme court justice.
A former Justice of the Federal High Court in Abuja, Justice Gabriel Kolawole, had in 2019, also declined the request to continue hearing the case of Nicholas Ashinze, a former aide of Sambo Dasuki, ex-national security adviser, after being elevated to the court of appeal.
Justice Kolawole had questioned the constitutionality of section 396(7).
The supreme court, in Oloyede Ishola V. Ajiboye (1994), declared that “the constitution is supreme not only when another law is inconsistent with it but also when another law seeks to compete with it in an area already covered by the constitution”.
Besides his present status by virtue of his elevation to the bench of the appellate court, the Federal High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain chieftaincy matters.
So going by the above precedents, it’s an undisputed fact that both Justice Liman and the Federal High Court lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter.
The law is trite that jurisdiction is the life wire of a case without which any decision taken by a court, no matter highly sound is ab initio, null and void.
Kano State Government
Reacting to the ruling in a statement, the government said: “The Kano State government acknowledges the ruling by the Federal High Court regarding the Kano Emirates Council (Repeal) Law, 2024 and views same as upholding the rule of law.
“By the ruling of the court, it has unequivocally reaffirmed the validity of the law passed by Kano State House of Assembly and assented to by His Excellency, the Executive Governor of Kano State on Thursday, May 23, 2024, by 5:10pm.
“This part of the judgment is very fundamental to the entire matter. Further implication of the ruling is that all actions done by the government before the emergence of the interim order of the honourable court are equally validated. This means that the abolishing of the five emirates created in 2019 is validated and the deposition of the five emirs is also sustained by the Federal High Court.
“By implication, this means that Muhammadu Sanusi II remains the emir of Kano. The judge also granted our application for the stay of proceedings until the Court of Appeal deals with the appeal before it on jurisdiction.
“Happily, the signing of the law and the reinstatement of His Highness, Emir Muhammad Sanusi II, were done on May 23, 2024, before the emergence of the Interim Order, which was served on us on Monday, May 27, 2024.”

Lawyers differ
Speaking on the issue, rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN said the supreme court had ruled that federal high courts do not have jurisdictions on chieftaincy matters.
Falana said the supreme court had issued two separate judgments limiting the powers of the federal court on traditional institutions.
The Senior Advocate of Nigeria said judgments of the supreme court are binding on all authorities in the country, adding that the apex court had ruled that being a chief is not a fundamental right and issues of chieftaincy should not be entertained by a federal high court.
“The order is a bit confusing, but what is important, which the learned judge did not address in his ruling, is the convenient way in which two solid judgments of the supreme court on the limitation of the power of the federal high courts to interfere in the affairs of traditional institutions.
“It cannot be done via fundamental rights application. I listened to him, his lordship was talking about the need to respect the rule of law.
“In any country that loudly claims to pronounce and operate under the rule of law, the judgments of the supreme court are binding on all authorities.
“It is a mockery of the rule of law, if the high court judge decides to ignore or overrule the judgments of the supreme court.”
On his part, professor of law, Chidi Odinkalu, maintains that since Sanusi was issued a letter of appointment on May 23 before the judge gave the order and was sworn in on May 24, the claim that he still remains the emir of Kano is valid.
“Sanusi was issued a letter of appointment on May 23 before the incredulous order of the judge. The swearing in was on May 24. The judge says everything after his order is invalid. So, since the letter of appointment was issued before that, it is valid in terms of his order.
“Of course, there is a huge question as to the lawfulness of the entire proceedings. The law being challenged was assented to at 5.10 pm on May 23. At that time, no registry was open anywhere in Nigeria. Where was the case filed and at what time for the judge to have issued an order on May 23? ”, he queried.
An Abuja based legal practitioner and rights activist, Okueyelegbe S. Maliki, on his part, noted that it is settled in law that a court judgment, no matter how wrongly made, is valid and subsisting until set aside by an appellate court.
Maliki said the remark by the Kano State government that Sanusi remains the emir of Kano was rather hasty. He, therefore, urged the government to take the necessary steps to set aside the judgment before it can legally make such a remark. A former Director of the Department of State Services (DSS), Mike Ejiofor, a lawyer, held that it would be wrong for the governor to violate the judgment of a court.
While blaming the judiciary for the role it played in the lingering crisis by issuing orders and counter orders, he urged either of the parties to appeal the judgment for proper interpretation of the latest development.
“Whatever be the problem in Kano State cannot erode the validity of the law that removed the former emir. At the same time, another court granted an order restraining every action. In this case, which one is the status quo? Does that mean that Sanusi should remain or not? So, there is conflict in the judgment that is making it difficult to interpret.
“So, the Kano State government insisting that Sanusi remains in office as Emir in spite of the court order is wrong. I believe that the best thing to do is for either of the parties to go on appeal for proper interpretation of the judgment.”
For the chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association Section On Public Interest And Development Law (NBA-SPIDEL), John Aikpokpo-Martins, all orders of court must be obeyed no matter how erroneous it is or may be.
The immediate past NBA 1st Vice President said the only option left for the Kano State government is to appeal the decision with the aim to set it aside.
“As it is today, Sanusi is not the bonafide Emir of Kano except and until the order of the Federal High Court is vacated,” he said.
Aikpokpo-Martins, however, added: “Personally, I do think that the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the case.”
Now that the matter has been sent to the Court of Appeal for determination, Kano State and Nigerians at large eagerly awaits an outcome that can serve the Justice of the case.