Rights activist and senior lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana, SAN, has criticized the intervention of a Federal High Court in Kano regarding the emirship dispute in the state. Falana argued that matters related to the appointment and removal of traditional rulers fall outside the jurisdiction of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court.
Falana emphasized that the Federal High Court’s involvement in the deposition of Emir Ado Bayero and the reinstatement of Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi contradicts a Supreme Court decision. He referenced the 1987 case of Tukur versus the Government of Gongola State, in which the apex court ruled, “The right to be Emir is not guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution and the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction whatever in the matter.”
According to Falana, the Supreme Court has established that the right to be an emir is not a fundamental right under Chapter Four of the Constitution. Consequently, the Federal High Court in Kano should have declined jurisdiction in the chieftaincy dispute. He added that any claims of infringement of fundamental rights by the applicants are secondary to the main issue of deposition and reinstatement of the emirs.
Citing the Court of Appeal decision in FCMB Plc v Nyama (2014), Falana reiterated that the enforcement of fundamental rights must be the primary claim for the court to exercise jurisdiction under the Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules. In this case, the main claim was related to chieftaincy matters, not fundamental rights.
Falana also criticized the National Industrial Court’s intervention in a similar case in Kaduna State. In Jonathan Paragua Zamuna versus the Governor of Kaduna State & Another, the court held that the deposition of the claimant as a traditional ruler was illegal and ordered his reinstatement. The court justified its jurisdiction by stating that the payment of a monthly salary to the claimant brought the matter within its purview.
Falana disagreed, stating that Section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution does not grant the National Industrial Court the authority to hear chieftaincy matters. He argued that the payment of a stipend to a traditional ruler by the state government does not make the ruler an employee or public officer under the court’s jurisdiction.
He noted that the only time such courts can entertain matters involving traditional rulers is when the complaint is limited to issues like banishment or detention, as in the case of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi versus Attorney-General of Kano State & Ors. In that case, the Federal High Court declared the banishment of the applicant to Nasarawa State illegal and unconstitutional.
Falana concluded by urging judges and lawyers to recognize that disputes over chieftaincy matters fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of state High Courts. He reminded the judiciary of the Supreme Court’s caution in Tukur v Government of Gongola State, stating that courts do not have the power to prescribe or expand their own jurisdiction.