Kano Govt Vehicle Retrieval : Untangling debate around Muhuyi, Kwankwaso ,former commissioners

By Uzair Adam On Mar 7, 2026

Court, Kano, ex-commissioners, vehicle , — Court slams N1 million cost on Kano govt in ex-commissioners’ vehicle case

The debate over the Kano State Government’s effort to retrieve official vehicles from some former commissioners has continued to dominate discussions across social media, even as the matter is already in court.

SolaceBase carefully observed that supporters and critics of the government’s action have traded arguments online, with many questioning whether the move is justified.

Some commentators have gone further to cite past cases of public officials who were allowed to retain official vehicles after leaving office, using those examples to argue that the former commissioners should also be permitted to keep theirs.

At the centre of many of those comparisons is the case involving the former chairman of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission, Muhuyi Magaji Rimin Gado.

For some critics, the question has been why Muhuyi was able to retain official vehicles while the government appears determined to retrieve those currently in the possession of former commissioners.

However, documents available on the matter suggest that the circumstances surrounding Muhuyi’s vehicles differ significantly from the controversy now unfolding around the commissioners.

Available records indicate that Muhuyi obtained the vehicles through a process that required payment to the government, following an approved procedure similar to monetization or auction of government assets.

The vehicles in question, according to a document from the office of the Secretary to the Kano State Government, dated August 19^th, 2025 indicates approval for the sale of a 2018 Toyota Corolla and a Nissan Hilux for N1,258,333.33.

In such arrangements, public officials who are granted approval may acquire vehicles previously attached to their offices after paying a depreciated value determined by the relevant authorities.

Supporters of the former anti-corruption chief argue that this distinction is often ignored in the ongoing public debate.

According to them, Muhuyi’s acquisition of the vehicles followed due process, with payment made to the government in line with established administrative procedures.

SolaceBase further gathered that the legal framework guiding the benefits of political office holders in Nigeria is largely determined by the remuneration structure set by the Revenue Mobilisation Allocation and Fiscal Commission.

Under the commission’s remuneration package for public and political office holders, the provision relating to vehicles is primarily structured around a motor vehicle loan, which beneficiaries are expected to repay before the expiration of their tenure.

This framework means that official vehicles remain government property unless they are disposed of through approved procedures such as auction or monetization.

The existence of such procedures is not unique to Muhuyi’s case. In fact, records from previous administrations show that similar arrangements have been used in the past.

One of the most frequently cited examples in the current debate is that of former Kano State governor, Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso.

Documents from the Office of the Secretary to the State Government indicate that after completing his tenure in 2015, Kwankwaso was granted approval to acquire an official armoured Toyota Lexus Escalade, purchased less than a year at over N300m that had been attached to his office.

The vehicle was eventually purchased by the former governor at the cost of N3 million, as reflected in a treasury receipt issued in May of that year.

Although the decision generated discussions at the time—particularly because official accommodation and vehicles had already been provided for the former governor after leaving office in the state pension scheme for former governors—the transaction itself followed an approved process in which the vehicle was sold to him.

The reference to this example has become significant in the current debate because it demonstrates that government assets such as official vehicles can, under certain circumstances, be transferred to public officials through an approved payment process.

However, a government official who does not have the authority to speak to journalists told SolaceBase that the former commissioners have no constitutional right to dictate to the government on what it should do.

The official options opened to the government that guide its decisions in situations of asset disposal, the government may auction the vehicles to the beneficiaries, release them freely, or demand their return.

According to him, auctions typically occur after about four years of use, whereas the vehicles in question were allocated for less than one year.

Analysts observing the controversy say the comparison between these earlier cases and the current dispute involving the former commissioners may overlook a crucial difference.

According to information surrounding the ongoing legal battle, the vehicles now being sought by the government were allocated to the commissioners in May 2025, meaning they had been in use for less than six months before the officials resigned their appointments earlier this year.

This short timeline has been cited by some government officials as one of the reasons for insisting on the return of the vehicles, since newly purchased government assets are typically expected to remain part of the state’s inventory unless formally disposed of through established procedures.

The disagreement eventually led some of the affected former commissioners to approach the court, seeking to restrain the government from retrieving the vehicles pending the determination of their rights.

Similarly they former commissioners cited the case of a colleague who resigned last year shortly after the vehicles were issued to them but still possess same.

For many observers, the controversy illustrates how quickly public perception can shape political debates, especially in an era where discussions on social media often move faster than the detailed explanations behind government decisions.

While the courts are expected to determine the legal questions surrounding the commissioners’ case, analysts say the broader lesson may lie in the need for clearer public understanding of how government assets are managed.

In the absence of such clarity, comparisons between different situations—such as the cases involving Muhuyi and previous office holders—can easily create impressions of inconsistency, even when the administrative circumstances behind them are not the same.

Ultimately, the unfolding debate in Kano highlights a recurring issue in public governance: the tension between perception and procedure, and the challenge of ensuring that decisions involving public assets are both transparent and properly understood by the citizens they are meant to serve.