Court orders mental check on Sheikh Abduljabbar

The Upper Shari’ah Court sitting at Kofar Kudu in Kano has ordered mental and hearing checks on controversial cleric, Sheik Abduljabbar Nasiru Kabara.

The presiding judge, Ibrahim Sarki Yola, gave the order, on Thursday, following a request by the prosecution counsel, Surajo Sa’ida.

• Buhari’s govt has recovered N1trn looted funds – APC leaders
• The Brief: Fired ministers; Zamfara abduction; IPOB bombs

The accused has refused to answer all the new charges against him by the state government.

Justice Sarki-Yola ordered that the cleric be examined by a psychiatrist at Dawanau Psychiatric Hospital in the state for check on his mental health, as well as by an audiologist at Murtala Muhammad Specialists Hospital, to find out why he was mum to all the new charges read before him.

Prosecution counsel, Surajo Sa’ida, had earlier read four new count charges against the cleric bothering on blasphemy and using offensive words on Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) during his teachings, which according to him, are against the provisions of section 382(b) of Kano State Shari’ah Law, 2000.

However, the presiding judge ruled that the cleric’s silence to all the charges implied that he is pleading not guilty as provided by section 278 (i) of ACGL, 2019.

Earlier, the defendant counsel, Saleh M. Bakaro, argued that the prosecution counsels have no right to withdraw the initial First Information Report (FIR) form, with the intention of replacing it with fresh charges.

But, Justice Sarki-Yola, ruled that the form could be replaced by the prosecuting counsels, in line with the provisions of section 390 (i) of ACGL, 2015.

Counsel to the defendant, Barrister Bakaro, however requested for all the court’s proceedings from the date of the first arraignment for them to appeal to Kano State High Court, especially on the replacement of the first charges in the first FIR with a new one and the subsequent reintroduction of four new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) by the state government, which he argued did not have jurisdiction under the court’s provisions.