By Our Correspondent
The Kano State High Court presided over by Justice Usman Malam Na’abba has fixed 16th May, 2024 to deliver ruling on legality to serve National Chairman of APC and former Governor of Kano State, Dr. Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, his wife, son and others Defendants in the criminal case with court processes through substituted means or otherwise.
Ganduje, his wife and other co- Defendants are being accused by kano State Government for alleged financial misappropriation and corruption during his tenure as Governor of Kano State.
Read Also: Dramatic Start as Former Kano Governor, Others Face Corruption Trial in Kano High Court
At the last adjourned date, the presiding judge directed all parties to appear today Monday and address the court for and the against effecting of Court processes through substituted means in a criminal trial, without making any effort to serve the defendants personally.
Read Also: Kano High Court Spokesperson Loses Mother
When the case resumed today for address, Lead counsel for the prosecution, Adeola Adedife SAN argued that the Criminal charge can be effected by substituted means as provided by the provision of section 378(5) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, of Kano State 2019.
The SAN further argued that by the provision of section 378(5) exparte application will be brought before the court to seek for leave to allow service on the defendant, through his lawyer, servants, adult in his house or in any manner the court may deem fit.
Read Also: Kano Commission of inquiry on recovery of public assets set to hold inaugural sitting Monday
He explained that the wisdom behind the provision of section of 378(5) of ACJL was to cure the mischief in the previous laws.
He explained that in the previous laws there was no room for service through substituted means in criminal trial, stressing that this is an obstacle to serve justice in criminal trial, service of the charge to the defendant is necessary but may be difficult if they cannot be located
Read Also: Gov. Yusuf Inaugurates Commissions of Inquiry into Political Violence, Misappropriation of Public Assets
when you file a charge but you will not see the defendant to serve him.
In his response, the prosecution Lead counsel, Nuraini Jimoh, SAN argued that the provision of section 378, sub 5 of ACJL Kano State, 2019 has contravened the provision of Item 57 part 1 which the criminal summon fall under the purview of exclusive jurisdiction list.
Jimoh SAN, also argued that service in criminal summon is through National Assembly law, referring to section 43 of constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
He submitted that where a State House makes law beyond it power its ultra vires.
The counsel further submitted that at the instance case the prosecution relied on the position that is not valid to law, calling on them to hinge their prayer on Laws made by the National Assembly, not State Law.
Read Also: Court Orders Arrest of Former DG of National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies
Nuraini Jimoh similarly argued that the court relied on the provision of section 387 sub 5 to bring the defendant to court.
He urged the court to reject any application exparte, orally or otherwise behind the defendants, noting that it is contrary to the provision of constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria.
After hearing of both arguments, Justice Nabba fixed 16 may, 2024 for ruling on legality to serve the defendants with criminal charge, personally or through substituted means.
The Defendants in the case include; Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, Hafsat Umar Ganduje, Abubakar Bawuro, Umar Abdullahi Umar, Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Safari Textiles Ltd, and Lesage General Enterprises.
