UPDATED : Court Fixes Date For Kano Emirate Kingmakers Suit Against Ganduje, 7 Others

Kano Governor, Abdullahi Ganduje

A Kano High Court has fixed December 17th to hear a motion on notice filed by Kano Emirate Kingmakers against Governor Abdullahi Ganduje and seven others restraining the creation of four new emirates in the state.

Solacebase reports that the plaintiffs in the suit Yusuf Nabahani (Madakin Kano), Abdullahi Sarki Ibrahim (Makama Kano), Bello Abubakar (Sarkin Dawaki Mai Tuta) and Muktar Adnan ( Sarkin Ban Kano) are seeking order of injunction for Governor Abdullahi Ganduje and seven others to maintain status quo on creation of new emirates.

The defendants in the suit are Speaker Kano State House of Assembly, first respondent, Kano State House of Assembly, second respondent, Governor of Kano State, third respondent, Attorney General of Kano State, fourth respondent, Tafida Abubakar Ila, fifth respondent, Ibrahim Abdulkadir Gaya sixth respondent,Ibrahim Abubakar, seventh respondent and Aminu Ado Bayero , eight respondent.

The Kingmakers in the motion on notice before Justice Ahmed Tijjani Badamosi asked the court in an interlocutory injunction from conducting any debate or deliberation on passing Kano State Emirate Council Bill, 2019, pending determination and hearing of the suit before the court.

They are also seeking the court order restraining the third respondent  from signing Kano State Emirate Council Bill, 2019, until determination and hearing of the suit before the court

The Kano Emirate Kingmakers similarly prayed the court to order the 1,2,3 and 4 respondents to maintain status quo as directed by the court.

The motion on notice signed by Barr. Suraj Sa’eda ,SAN was premised on the ground that a Kano High Court presided by Justice Usman Na’abba on November 21 in a judgement , ruled that the Kano Emir’s Appointment (Amendment Law of 2019) was not validly passed and set it aside as null and void.

They argued that immediately after the judgment the third respondent, Governor Abdullahi insited not to obey the judgment and that the appointment of the emirs subsist.

They averred that the action of the 1,2 and 3 respondents be restrained so as not to preempt the court with actions that may lead to irreparable damage to the plaintiffs