Emir Sanusi Reinstatement: Kano Government Speaks On Kano Emirate Tussle

Kano Government has broken the silence on Kano Emirate tussle regarding Emir Sanusi reinstatement.

Newsone Nigeria reports that Kano State Commissioner for Justice and Attorney General, Haruna Isa Dederi, has insisted that the ruling of the Abuja Division of the Court of Appeal,  on the lingering emirship tussle has not invalidated the reinstatement of Muhammadu Sanusi II as the 16th Emir.

The Attorney General noted that having passed a landmark verdict on January 10, 2025, reaffirming the power of the Kano State Government to reappoint Sanusi, it is impossible for the Court of Appeal to set aside or quash its own decision on the same matter.

Dederi made this position known to journalists while reacting to Friday’s ruling of the Appellate Court on the application for a stay of execution filed by Alh. Aminu Baba DanAgundi, one of the kingmakers loyal to the 15th Emir of Kano, Alh. Aminu Ado Bayero, pending the determination of the appeal at the Supreme Court.

According to him, the matter is functus officio, adding that only the Supreme Court has the power to set aside the decision of the Appeal Court handed down by Justice Mohammad Mustapha on January 10, 2025.

“The Appeal Court today, after hearing their application for a stay of execution, ruled that the status quo should rather be maintained as it is now until after the judgment of the Supreme Court. They have filed an appeal at the Supreme Court.

“It doesn’t mean that the judgment delivered on January 10, 2025, has been quashed. That judgment is still standing, still in place, and subsisting. The Court of Appeal cannot reverse its own decision. It is not possible. Only the Supreme Court has the power to set aside the judgment given by a lower court.

“So, the Court of Appeal, Abuja, today has just said that execution of the judgment has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal, which has been filed at the Supreme Court by Aminu Baba DanAgundi on behalf of Bayero,” Dederi noted.

It would be recalled that on January 10, 2025, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, led by Justice Mustapha, set aside the judgment of Justice A. Liman of the Federal High Court, Kano, which nullified the steps and actions taken by the Kano State Government pursuant to the Kano State Emirate Council (Repeal) Law 2024, including the appointment of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the 16th Emir of Kano.

The Appellate Court also dismissed the decision of the Federal High Court judge to hear the matter relating to the emirate council, ruling that the Federal High Court lacked the jurisdiction to do so. This decision upheld the removal of Bayero as the 15th Emir.

Dissatisfied with the verdict of Justice Mustapha’s panel, DanAgundi proceeded to the Supreme Court to seek the overturning of the lower court’s verdict. He also filed a motion for a stay of execution of Justice Mustapha’s judgment pending the hearing and determination of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the matter.

The application was also moved on the grounds that the applicant initially instituted the suit in Kano to protect his fundamental rights and argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.

In a unanimous ruling, the three-member panel of Justices led by Justice Abang on Friday held that the application was meritorious and deserving of the court’s discretion in the interest of justice.

“The law is settled. The court is enjoined to exercise its discretion judiciously and in the interest of justice,” Justice Abang said

The presiding judge held that the mandatory injunction ordered that the status quo ante bellum be maintained by the sheriff of this court and the trial court as it was before the trial court’s decision on 13/6/2024 in Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/182/2024.

In granting the injunction, Justice Abang emphasised that the applicant’s process was competent and had met all the necessary legal conditions required to obtain the relief sought.

Justice Abang noted that a valid appeal was already pending before the Supreme Court, reinforcing the need to preserve the subject matter of the litigation.