Court strikes out corruption charges against Ex-Kano commissioner Garo, cites lack of proper investigation procedure

A Kano State High Court has struck out a corruption charge filed against former Commissioner for Local Government Affairs, Murtala Sule Garo, and five others over issues relating to investigation and jurisdiction.

The case was struck out by Justice Sanusi Ado Ma’aji of Kano State High Court 15, sitting at Miller Road, Kano, in a Suit No. K/133c/2024.

Recalls that APC stakeholders in Kano over the weekend had nominated Murtala Sule Garo as the Kano Deputy Governor following the resignation of the former deputy governor, Aminu Abdulsalam Gwarzo.

The case involving Garo was instituted by the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission against the defendants, including Mohd Sule Garo, Mustaha Sule Garo, Isah Musa Kera, MJ Multipurpose Services Ltd., and A.U. Future Investment Ltd.

The court had earlier identified two issues for determination and directed parties to address them before delivering its ruling.

“This Court on 25/02/2025 raised two issues and directed parties to address it on the same. The issues are:-”

“1. Whether the Complainant can prosecute the Defendants in the absence of investigations.”

“2. Whether having regard to the judgments of the Federal High Court in Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/307/2024 between Mustapha Sule Garo Vs. A. G. Kano State & Others, Suit No. FHC/KN/CS/127/2024 between Musa Abdullahi Lawan Esq. Vs. Kano State Public Complaint and Anti-Corruption Commission and 1 Other, case of Dr. Labaran Yusuf Vs. Kano State Public Complaint and Anti-Corruption Commission (delivered by this Court) and the case of Hajlya Aisha Muhd Bello & Another Vs. Hon. A. G. Kano State. The complainant can investigate cases of corrupt practices.”

In addressing the first issue, counsel for the complainant explained the meaning of criminal investigation and its relevance to prosecution.

He stated that a criminal investigation is “A lawful search for people and things to reconstruct the circumstances of an illegal act, apprehend and determine the guilty party and aid the state’s prosecution of the offender”.

The counsel further expanded on what constitutes investigation within the law.

He said it involves “Everything done by an authorized agency or person within the law, for the purpose of determining what crime has been committed, who committed the crime, where the crime was committed, why the crime was committed, when the crime was committed and how the crime was committed with a view to bringing an offender to book. It should be noted that the aim of bringing an offender to book after investigation means differentiates criminal investigation from any part of investigation”.

Counsel also informed the court that the defendants were invited during the investigation but did not honour the invitations.

However, counsel to the 5th and 6th defendants challenged the validity of the charge, arguing that failure to comply with constitutional provisions rendered the case defective.

They described the charge as “grossly incompetent, premature and offends the provision of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), and therefore same is void ab initio and incapable of igniting the jurisdiction of this Court.”

In its ruling, the court examined whether prosecution could proceed without prior investigation and stated its position.

“It is impossible to prosecute anybody for any crime without first conducting some form of investigation however slight.”

The court also relied on the Administration of Criminal Justice Law 2019 to support its position.

It stated: “Any person who is alleged to have committed an offence shall be arrested, investigated, tried and dealt with in accordance to the provision of this law, except otherwise provided by the law creating the offence”.

The court then resolved the first issue in favour of the defendants.

“I hold that this issue is resolved against the prosecution in favour of the 5th * 6th defendant.”

On the second issue, the court considered whether the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission has the authority to investigate corruption-related matters.

Relying on a Court of Appeal decision, the court cited its position on the relationship between federal and state laws on such matters.

It quoted: “the provisions of Bauchi State Public Complaints and Anti Corruption Commission law which seeks to take over the investigation of all Anti – Corruption and Financial Crimes cases involving the finances and assets of Bauchi State Government… is patently inconsistent with the provisions of the EFCC Act and therefore null and void”.

Based on this, the court held that the commission lacks the authority to investigate such offences.

In a certified True Copy of the judgement dated 04-02-2026, the judge stated: “I hold that the complainant. herein cannot investigate any issue that borders on corruption or corrupt practices. This issue is also resolved in favour of the defendants. Predicated of the above stated the charge herein filed by the complainant is hereby struck out. The defendants are accordingly discharged.”

In August 2024, the Kano State government had filed a fresh fraud charge against the immediate past governor, Abdullahi Ganduje, Murtala Garo, and two others.

The charges, meticulously documented and submitted by the Kano State Ministry of Justice, accuse the defendants of conspiring to divert over ₦57.43billion meant for the 44 local government areas of Kano State.

The charge sheet had named Garo, Lamin Sani, and Muhammad Takai, accusing them of “criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, making false statements or returns, and criminal misappropriation.”