There is palpable tension in the air as a Federal High Court is set to deliver judgement today on who is the authentic Emir of Kano.

The tussle for the exalted traditional stool is between Sanusi Lamido, the 15th Emir who was installed in 2014 but deposed in 2020 by the then state government.

Sanusi was recently reinstated by Governor Abba Yusuf who deposed Aminu Ado Bayero who succeeded Sanusi as the 16th Emir. The two are distant cousins.

The federal High Court had last week Friday, slates Thursday, June 20, 2024, to decide whether the new Emirate Law created by the Abba Yusuf administration should stay. It was the law that brought Sanusi back as Emir of Kano.

If the court nullifies the new law, Sanusi Lamido who was reinstated as Emir by Governor Abba Yusuf on May 24 2024 would be made to vacate the seat for a second time.

In his ruling on Friday, the presiding judge, Justice Abdullahi Muhammad Liman fixed the date to rule on a motion filed by counsel for Aminu Babba Dan’Agundi, who is seeking the court to declare the Kano Emirates Council (repeal) Law 2024 null and void.

The applicant, who is the traditional title holder of Sarkin Dawaki Babba of Kano emirate, approached the court seeking to enforce his fundamental human rights said to have been violated by government action in the Emirship tussle.

The respondents in the suit are Kano State Government as 1st respondent, Kano State House of Assembly (2nd), Speaker of Kano State House of Assembly (3rd), Attorney General of Kano State (4th), Kano Commissioner of Police (5th), Inspector General of Police, IGP (6th), NSCDC and DSS as 7th and 8th respondents respectively.

Dan Agundi’s lawyer Chikaosolu Ojukwu SAN moved the motion after the court refused an application for a stay of proceedings orally moved by counsel for the Kano State House of Assembly and its speaker, Eyitayo Fatogun SAN.

Fatogun drew the attention of the court dissatisfied with the ruling of the court on Thursday assuming jurisdiction in the matter, noting that he has filed a notice of appeal at the court of appeal and motion on stay of execution.

He urged the judge to adjourn in view of the processes filed pending hearing and determination of his application at the court of appeal.

Counsel for the attorney general of Kano state and the state government A. G. Wakil aligned himself with the position of Fatogun.

The applicant’s counsel countered saying the authorities cited by the defence were not judicial decisions but rules of court.

Justice Liman ruled that from the acknowledged receipted letter of the defence counsel, it is clear that no date is fixed and there is no evidence that the appeal has been entered.

The judge held that the court would hear the pending application as there was no formal stay of proceedings application before the court.

When the plaintiff’s counsel rose to move his motion seeking a declaration of the conduct of the dependants as null and void, counsel for the assembly and its speaker Eyitayo Fatogun applied to be recused from the matter and asked for an adjournment to enable his clients to find another lawyer.

He argued that he cannot defend the interest of clients who have the fundamental right to be heard and to proceed is to deny them their right.

Justice Liman held that the conduct of the lawyer amounted to an abuse of the court process.

While noting that he intends to abandon the procedural route, the judge said the sacred duty of courts is to serve justice to all manner of people.

Counsel for Kano government AG Wakil opposed the plaintiff’s application having filed his application for a stay of proceedings arguing that if granted the substantive case is over.

The plaintiff’s lawyer then withdrew his application to amend his originating motion dated 31/024 which the judge struck out and adjourned to Thursday, June 20 for ruling on the motion seeking the court’s declaration that the Kano Emirates Council repeal law 2023 is null and void.

On Friday also, a Federal High Court in Kano upheld the rights of movement and freedom to civil liberty of the deposed Emir of Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero.

The court also asked the Kano State Government to pay N10m damages to the 15th Emir.

In his judgment, the Presiding Judge of the Federal High Court 3, Justice Simon Amobeda, upheld the applicant counsel’s withdrawal of reliefs Order 1-2 on the grounds that they have the right by the rules of law to do so and as such they are no longer part of the case.

He also hinted that he was duty-bound to resolve the issues of jurisdiction of the court to determine the case before he delved into the main matter of the case.

Justice Amobeda, while upholding the jurisdiction of the court to hear the case, insisted that it falls within the issues of abuse of fundamental human rights of the applicant and the Constitution granted the court powers to preside over the matter.

He said the relying points of the applicants are reliefs 2-7 seeking among others payments of N5 bn as damages for threatening his human rights.

“It the duty of the court to protect the rights of every citizen but that protection cannot be done in a vacuum, a person crying violation of his fundamental human rights must provide cogent and vital evidence to that effect to which the applicant has successfully provided,” the judge said.

“Government used the kingmakers to select a new emir, but surprisingly on Friday, May 23, 2024, the government used social media to propagate that he had deposed the applicant and declared that police should arrest him after giving him 48 hours to vacate the palace.

“I hold that without any lawful justification, the applicant is threatened, breaching his fundamental rights to liberty as guaranteed in Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

“Similarly, there is an act of the government which has forced the applicant to a house arrest, preventing him from going about his lawful business, constitutes a flagrant violation of his fundamental rights to freedom of movement as guaranteed under section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution.

“That the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents that is the Police, the DSS, Army, Air force, Navy, are either by themselves, their agents, servants, privies or any other person’s or authority forthwith restraint from arresting, detaining, harassing the applicant.

“That the second respondent and the Government of Kano State should pay the sum of N10 million for breach and likely breach of his Fundamental Right to Personal liberty and freedom of movement as guaranteed in the 1999 constitution,” the judge said.