Gwandu Emirate Tussle: SAN Seeks Probe of Supreme Court’s Two Years Adjournment of Appeal

•As lawyer advocates regional courts to expedite cases

Alex Enumah in Abuja

A legal luminary and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Chief Mike Ahamba, has called for investigation into circumstances leading to a two years adjournment in the hearing of an appeal in respect of the Gwandu Emirate headship by the Supreme Court.

This is just as an Abuja-based lawyer, Mr. Innocent Daagba has called for the creation of regional Supreme Courts in the country to decongest backlog of appeals at the Supreme Court.

The apex court had on November 29, 2021, ordered a two-year adjournment of hearing in appeal challenging the five-year old order of the Court of Appeal, Sokoto Division, which had reinstated H.R.H. Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo, as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, to November 2023.

Justices on the panel that ordered the two years adjournment were Olukayode Ariwoola (presiding), Amina Augie, JohnOkoro, Abdu Aboki and Emmanuel Agim.

In his reaction on the adjournment, Ahamba however, called on the Bar to convene a discussion on the issue and to investigate the real causes of the long adjournment and delay in dispensation of justice, particularly at the Supreme Court, with a view to finding solution in the interest of Justice.

“Our courts are congested, the Supreme Court too is congested with appeals. Nobody can explain, they say its workload, but one has to investigate the causes of long adjournments.

“We must find out why it is so now. I hope the Bar will one day call for a discussion on the issue. The truth is that the Supreme Court is congested,” he added.

On his part, Daagba blamed the country’s procedural law and court system for the delay in justice dispensation.

Daagba posited that, “when you unbundle the Supreme Court by creating Regional Divisions, cases like land disputes, chieftaincy matters etc emanating from certain regions will terminate at the regional Supreme Courts, thereby reducing appeals and workload at the Supreme Court of Nigeria.

“Some of us have been clamouring for establishment of regional Courts of Appeal and regional Supreme Courts so that certain matters will terminate there”, he said, just as he blamed the situation on the nation’s constitution.

The November 29, sitting was for the court to hear a motion for substitution of the names of deceased kingmakers in the three appeals marked SC2/2013 (Attorney-General of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo); SC314/2016(Alhaji Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo & anor); and SC266/2017(Governor of Kebbi State and others against Alhaji Mustapha Haruna Jokolo.

The briefs for the appeals were filed in 2019 and consolidated.

Jokolo was deposed in 2005 and he promptly went to court to challenge his dethronement.

In 2014, a Kebbi State High Court 6, sitting in Birnin Kebbi, ordered his immediate reinstatement, having been satisfied he was illegally deposed.

In his ruling, the presiding judge, Justice Abbas Ahman said the deposition was contrary to law and that due process was not followed.

Not satisfied with the judgment, Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor, filed an appeal challenging the decision of the Kebbi State High Court.

In a unanimous judgment passed in April 2016, the three judges of the appellate court led by Justice Tunde Awotoye held that the 2005 deposition of the Emir by the then Governor of the state, Senator Adamu Aliero contravened sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the State because the Governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the Kebi State’s Council of Chiefs before arriving at his decision.

The Kebbi State Government and Jokolo’s successor approached the Supreme Court for a final decision. Specifically, the appeals before the Supreme Court were aimed at reviewing the verdicts of the two lower courts to affirm or deny that Kebbi State Government contravened section 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the state because the governor neither made an inquiry into the allegation against the Emir nor consulted the state’s council of chiefs before arriving at his decision.