Court gives Kano judges chairing Ganduje inquiry 48 hours to resign

Delivering a judgement on Thursday in a suit filed by former Governor of Kano State, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, Justice Amobeda held that the NJC should stop payment of any remuneration, allowances and benefits meant for the two judges from the consolidated revenue fund if they failed to comply with the order.

Daily Trust reported that the state Governor, Abba Kabir Yusuf, had on April 4 inaugurated the two judicial commissions of inquiry under the chairmanship of Justices Adamu and Yusuf to investigate cases of misappropriation of public properties, political violence and cases of missing persons from 2015 to 2023.

Justice Amobeda ordered that the judges should desist from performing the executive functions assigned to them by the governor in court rooms meant to adjudicate disputes between persons and authorities in the state.

The judge held that by  “the combined effects of sections 6, 84, 153(1), 271(2), 272 together with paragraph 21(c) of part 1 of the third schedule to the 1999 Constitution (as amended), the 4th and 5th defendants (Justices Faruk Adamu and Zuwaira Yusuf) are not legally permitted, “while purporting to hold the office of a judge of high court of Kano State, to accept appointments as chairmen of commission of inquiry with quasi-judicial powers equivalent to that of a Magistrate and subject to review by a judge of the High court of Kano State.”

The court also held that the governor had no power to appoint and administer oath of office for them to serve as chairmen of commission of inquiry, an office meant for commissioners in the exercise of executive powers assigned to them.

The court also held that in view of the decision of Justice Abdullahi Muhammad Liman which held that only tye EFCC and the ICPC can investigate the former governor, it is an abuse of office and undermining of the sanctity of the judiciary for the governor to set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the administration of the plaintiff.

The court, however, disagreed with   the argument of the plaintiff’s  counsel that the judges cease to be judicial officers by accepting to be members of the judicial commission of inquiry.