The counsel to the deposed Emir of Gwandu, Al-Mustapha Jokolo, has declared that they accept the judgement by the Supreme Court which overturned court orders for his reinstatement.
The Supreme Court, in a split judgement of three against two, found that the High Court in Kebbi, which affirmed Jokolo as emir, lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the matter as the requirement for the court action was not complied with.
The Supreme Court also upheld the incumbent, Alhaji Muhammadu Iliyasu Bashar, as the Emir of Gwandu.
With the judgement, the 20-year-old long tussle over the Gwandu Emirate throne between Ilyasu-Bashar and Jokolo has come to an end.
Bashar, who is a cousin to Jokolo, had, through his counsel, Yakubu Maikyau (SAN), contested the rulings in favour of Jokolo’s reinstatement against him and the Kebbi State Government.
Reacting to the judgement, Jokolo’s lawyer, Sylvester Imhanobe, said they would not apply for judicial review as he (Jokolo) had accepted the verdict in good faith.
But Imhanobe said he was surprised that the majority decision relied heavily on Section 4 of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law of Kebbi State when their case centred on Section 6, which does not require a pre-action complaint, since it was not about the selection of a new king.
“Our case was on deposition, which is the Section 6 of the Section 4 of the Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, but theirs is Section 4 of the law; we did not go near Section 4,” he said.
Jokolo has urged his supporters to be calm and see the judgement as the will of God.
Jokolo’s aide, who relayed the message, said though Jokolo was inside the house performing zuhr prayer, it was not the right time to speak.
Justice Emmanuel Agim delivers the lead judgement saying Jokolo should have submitted a formal complaint to the governor, as provided under Section 4 of the Kebbi State Chiefs (Appointment and Deposition) Law, before approaching the court for intervention.
“This suit was filed prematurely, without first complying with the requirement to present a complaint to the governor.
“Consequently, the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and its judgement is a nullity.
“The failure to notify the governor stripped the court of jurisdiction to hear the case.”
Based on that, the panel set aside the judgements of both lower courts, but did not make order as to costs.
Justice Ibrahim Mohammed Salawa, in the dissenting ruling disagreed with the majority judgement, dismissed the cross-appeals and affirmed the verdicts of the lower courts.
He said the governor ought to act in accordance with the law and due process.
Similarly, Justice Uwani Abba-Aji, while disagreeing with the majority judgement, submitted that it was high time the apex court began to deliver substantial justice to the people.
