Court calls on judges presiding over Ganduje investigative committee to resign

A federal high court sitting in Kano has ordered two judges to resign as chairmen of a commission of inquiry set up to investigate the case of Abdullahi Ganduje, a former governor of the state.

In a judgment delivered on Thursday, presiding judge Simon Amobeda ruled that Farouk Adamu and Zuwaira Yusuf should not have accepted the nomination of Abba Yusuf, the governor of Kano, because they are still serving as judges of the state’s high court.

Amobeda ordered the judges to resign from the commission within 48 hours.

He found that the National Judicial Council (NJC) (first defendant) was obliged to immediately stop payment of all salaries, allowances and benefits earmarked for judicial officers from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Federation to judges if they failed to comply with the 48-hour deadline.

Amobeda criticized the governor for appointing the commission without appealing to an earlier ruling by Justice A. Liman, who ruled that Ganduje’s case could only be investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

PRECIPITATE

Citing relevant sections of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, the judge found that the Kano State authorities had no authority to appoint two judges as chairmen of a commission of inquiry appointed by the governor.

“That, in accordance with the combined provisions of Section 153(1)(i) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, CFRN, ​​1999 (as amended), paragraph 21(d) of Part I of the Third Schedule of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Sections 1, 3 and 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Law, Chapter 26, Laws of Kano State, the Governor of Kano State has no power to appoint the fourth and fifth accused and administer to them the subsequent oath of office to serve as the Chairmen of the Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Governor of Kano State, an office reserved for the Commissioners of the Kano State Government to exercise the executive powers conferred on them by the Governor of Kano State and restrain them from exercising their functions as Judges of the High Court of Kano State, without recourse to the first accused,” the court held.

“That by the cumulative effect of the provisions of Sections 6, 84, 153(1)(1), 271(2) and 272 read with paragraph 21(c) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the fourth and fifth accused are not legally permitted, while they continue to pretend to occupy the office of Judge of the High Court of Kano State, to accept appointments as Chairmen of Commissions of Inquiry with quasi-judicial powers equivalent to those of a District Court and subject to the control of a Judge of the High Court of Kano State.

“That, by the combined effect of Sections 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), the action of the Governor of Kano State in appointing the 4th and 5th accused as Chairmen of the Commissions of Inquiry in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3 and 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Law, Cap. 26, Laws of Kano State, instead of appointing from among the Commissioners of the Kano State Government, amounts to an infringement and subversion of the judicial arm of the government, a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers, a grave breach of the Constitution and a gross misconduct on the part of the Governor of Kano State and the 3rd accused who took the oath of office and swore allegiance to the 4th and 5th accused.

“That by the cumulative effect of the provisions of Sections 5, 6, 84 and 271 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended) and Paragraph 21(c) of Part I of the Third Schedule to the Constitution, and the provisions of the Preamble and Rule 3.7 of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers of the Federal Republic of Nigeria issued by the 1st defendant, the 4th and 5th defendants, having accepted the executive appointments as Chairmen of Commissions of Inquiry, resigned from their judicial functions and exchanged their courtrooms for the places of exercise of the executive functions assigned to them by the Governor of Kano State, they cannot at the same time continue to hold office as Judges of the High Court of Kano State and they cannot be entitled to the salaries and allowances of judicial officers fixed by the 2nd defendant and paid by the 1st defendant.

“In light of the decision of this honourable court coram: Justice AM Liman in case number FHC/KN/195/2023 (between Dr Abdullahi Umar Ganduje v. Nigeria Police Force & Ors) delivered on 5th March 2024, wherein it was held that the plaintiff in the present case can only be investigated by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) or the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), it is an abuse of power and undermining the sanctity of the judiciary by the Governor of Kano State to set up a commission of inquiry inferior to this court to purportedly investigate the administration of the plaintiff.

“That accused Nos. 4 and 5, who are serving judicial officers, shall respectively resign from their positions as Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry for the Recovery of Misappropriated Public Properties and Assets and Chairman of the Commission of Inquiry for the Investigation of Political Violence and Missing Persons and shall also immediately cease to exercise the executive functions entrusted to them by the Governor of Kano State in the courtrooms designated for the resolution of disputes between persons and authorities in Kano State.

“In the event that the fourth and fifth defendants fail to comply with this order within 48 hours of its service, the first defendant shall immediately withhold payment of all salaries, allowances and benefits earmarked for judicial officers from the consolidated federal revenue fund to the fourth and fifth defendants while they serve as chairmen of the commissions of inquiry.”

However, the court refused to issue an order depriving the judges of their functions as court officials.

The lawsuit was filed by Ganduje.