Human Rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has described the recent judicial orders in Kano State as an embarrassment to the Judiciary.
In an interview on a television programme yesterday, the legal luminary highlighted that the existence of conflicting judicial orders creates significant issues.
Specifically, he mentioned that the state High Court issued an order in favor of Sanusi that such conflict would be resolved by the Court of Appeal to mitigate any confusion.
He argued that this procedural step should typically prevent any further pronouncements from the Federal High Court judge, as the matter is now under the purview of the higher court, noting that despite this the judge in question proceeded to make further rulings.
He said, ”The orders oozing out of Kano are an embarrassment to the Judiciary. And once we already have conflicting orders, there is a problem. We have an order of the State High Court in favour of Sanusi. The practice in the past was to allow the Court of Appeal to clear the confusion as it were.
And in this case, an appeal has been filed in the court of appeal over the ruling of the court that it had jurisdiction over the matter. And from the information at my disposal, the record has been entered. Once that is shown to the Judge, he can no longer make any pronouncement but he still went ahead”.
According to Falana, the President of Nigeria does not possess the Constitutional authority to remove a sitting governor. He emphasised the clear distinction in the roles and powers outlined in the Nigerian Constitution regarding the removal of elected officials.
Falana drew an analogy to underscore his point, suggesting that the idea of a President removing a governor is as implausible as the National Assembly passing a resolution to remove the President. He noted that such actions are beyond the Constitutional provisions and powers vested in either the President or the National Assembly.
“There are provisions in the Constitution for removing a governor, and it is either by resignation, death, or impeachment, so a president in Abuja cannot suspend or remove a governor,” Falana stated.
He further explained that the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that State governors do not have the authority to remove elected local government officials, such as chairmen or counselors, before the end of their tenure. This legal precedent, he argued, further invalidates any claim that a president could remove a sitting governor.
“The Supreme Court has said that no governor has the power to remove elected local government officials before the end of their tenure. If a State governor cannot remove a local government chairman or a counselor, where does the President get the power to remove a governor?” Falana queried.
