Criminal Charges: Court adjourns for suit against Ganduje, wife, Hafsat, 6 others

By solacebase.com On Apr 29, 2024

Kano ,Abdullahi Ganduje, court, bribery allegation, Fund ,misappropriation,Court, Ruling, Substituted Service — (L-R) Abdullahi Ganduje and his wife, Hafsat

By Muhammad Alhaji

A Kano State High Court has adjourned till May 16, 2024, for ruling on whether to allow service through substituted means to respondents in the criminal charges the Kano State government, preferred against former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje, his wife, Hafsat, and 6 others are respondents in the case.

SolaceBase had reported that the Kano State government had dragged former governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, his wife, Hafsat Umar, Umar Abdullahi Umar, and five others to court on eight count charges relating to bribery allegations, misappropriation, and diversion of funds among others running into billions of naira.

The presiding judge, Justice Usman Na’abba, on Monday after listening to arguments and counter-arguments on whether the respondents could be served using alternative means, fixed the date for his ruling on the applications.

Before the court, the counsel representing the sixth respondent, Lamash Properties Limited, Nuraini Jimoh SAN, argued that respondents in a criminal case cannot be served through substituted means.

On his side, the Counsel representing the state government, Adeola Adedigbe SAN made reference to a Kano state law 378/5 that allows service in criminal case to be made using substituted means.

In his argument, Jimoh described the Kano state law as ‘Ultra Vires’ and is inferior to the Nigerian Constitution that restricts such action.

He explained that the Nigeria law says that service of criminal charge is on the exclusive legislative list.

“Hence, the Kano state Assembly law that allows service of criminal summons by substituted means is Ultra Vires” he stated.

He further argued that there is no charge before the court against the respondents as the application before it reads, “Application to prepare a charge”.

He added that the attempt to make the court allow service by substituted means when no effort has been made to reach the respondents.

He added that it is a violation of section 36 of the constitution.