The Federal High Court in Kano State on Thursday nullified the Kano State government’s amendments to the Kano Emirates Council Law 2024, reversing the controversial dethronement of Emir Aminu Ado Bayero and the abolition of the newly established emirates.
The court’s decision reinstates Muhammadu Sanusi II as the 16th Emir of Kano, a position he lost in 2020 under the administration of former Governor Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje.
The law, originally repealed by the Kano House of Assembly and executed by current Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf, had led to significant political and traditional upheaval in the region.
Governor Yusuf’s actions included not only the removal of Emir Bayero but also the dissolution of the four additional emirates—Bichi, Rano, Karaye, and Gaya—created by Ganduje. These moves were seen as an effort to consolidate power and revert to the traditional structure of the Kano Emirate.
However, the legality of these amendments was contested by Aminu Babba Danagundi, the Sarkin Dawaki Babba, a prominent kingmaker in the former Kano Emirate. Represented by senior counsel Chikaosolu Ojukwu (SAN), Danagundi filed a petition challenging the validity of the law.
In his ruling, Justice Abdullahi Muhammad Liman declared the amendments null and void, directing all parties to revert to the status quo ante. This decision effectively reinstates the original structure of the Kano Emirate, including the reappointment of Sanusi II.
This judicial reversal comes amidst criticism from notable figures, including human rights lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), who had previously described the Federal High Court and National Industrial Court’s involvement in the emirship dispute as “highly erroneous.” Falana argued that chieftaincy disputes fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state high courts and should not be treated as matters of fundamental human rights.
Falana emphasized that while Nigeria’s federal structure is flawed, it is imperative that legal professionals recognize the appropriate jurisdictions for such local matters. He maintained that chieftaincy issues do not constitute fundamental rights and thus should not be adjudicated under constitutional provisions designed for human rights enforcement.
The High Court’s ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing saga of Kano’s traditional leadership, setting a precedent for the legal boundaries of state and federal jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters.
