Appeal Court in Abuja Explains Why it Overturned the Decision of Federal High Court on the Appointment of Emir of Kano

The Court of Appeal in Abuja has provided a detailed explanation for overturning the Federal High Court’s verdict regarding the appointment of Muhammadu Sanusi II as the Emir of Kano, stating that the lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction. The appellate court ruled that the Federal High Court, under Justice Abdullahi Liman, lacked the legal authority to handle chieftaincy disputes, which were central to the case. This overreach invalidated the previous judgment that had questioned Sanusi’s appointment, reinforcing the legality of his enthronement and nullifying conflicting rulings that had created ambiguity around the Kano throne.

The dispute began when the Federal High Court ruled in favor of Aminu Babba Dan’Agundi, who challenged the legitimacy of the Kano State Government’s actions that led to the appointment of Sanusi and the dissolution of the five emirates created by the Kano Emirate Council Law of 2023. Dan’Agundi argued that the removal of Aminu Ado Bayero as emir, along with the restructuring of the emirate, violated his fundamental rights. However, the Court of Appeal rejected this claim, stating that the Federal High Court had no jurisdiction over chieftaincy issues under Nigerian law.

Justice Mohammed Mustapha, leading a three-member appellate panel, emphasized that matters related to the Kano State Emirate Council Law fall outside the purview of fundamental human rights enforcement. Citing Section 251 of the Nigerian Constitution, the court clarified that the Federal High Court could only hear cases specifically involving the federal government or its agencies. Since chieftaincy disputes pertain to state laws and traditional matters, they are exclusively under the jurisdiction of state courts. The appellate court highlighted that Justice Liman’s decision to order the maintenance of the status quo in a chieftaincy matter was procedurally flawed, rendering his ruling invalid.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeal noted that Justice Liman exceeded his judicial role by intervening in a political and traditional affair. The ruling emphasized that the primary reliefs sought by the plaintiff were unrelated to any breach of fundamental rights and were instead centered on the governance and legitimacy of the Kano Emirate Council. As such, addressing these issues required adherence to state legal frameworks, not federal jurisdiction. By attempting to adjudicate on the dissolution of emirates and the subsequent appointments, the Federal High Court had ventured into areas outside its constitutional mandate.

In addition to its decision on Justice Liman’s verdict, the appellate court also addressed a related case previously handled by Justice Amina Aliyu of the Kano State High Court. Justice Aliyu had issued a perpetual injunction preventing Ado Bayero from presenting himself as an emir. The Court of Appeal found this judgment equally problematic, noting that it violated the principles of fair hearing. The appellate court ordered that the case be reassigned for a fresh hearing, reaffirming the need for procedural integrity in adjudicating chieftaincy disputes.

This ruling effectively resolved the legal battle over the Kano throne, confirming Muhammadu Sanusi II as the legitimate Emir of Kano. The court’s decision reinforced the validity of Sanusi’s reinstatement, which occurred on May 3, 2024, when Governor Abba Yusuf signed the Kano Emirates Repeal Law into effect. The appellate court’s interpretation of jurisdictional boundaries underscores the importance of judicial restraint and the need for courts to operate within the limits of their constitutional powers. The clarity provided by this judgment aims to prevent future jurisdictional overreaches and safeguard the rule of law in Nigeria’s chieftaincy matters.