Hearing on the emirship tussle instituted by the Kano State Government at the State High Court has suffered a major setback.
At the court on Tuesday, June 11, the Kano State Commissioner of Police, Usaini Gumel, said he was unable to serve the 15th Emir of Kano, Aminu Ado-Bayero and four others named in the suit the court papers.
The applicants in the matter are the Attorney General of Kano State, Speaker Kano State House of Assembly and Kano State House of Assembly.
Recall that Ibrahim Isah-Wangida, counsel for the applicants, had filed an exparte motion on May 27, 2024, seeking the court to restrain Aminu Ado-Bayero, and four other dethroned emirs of Bichi, Rano, Gaya and Karaye from parading themselves as emirs.
The respondents are: Alhaji Aminu Ado-Bayero(Kano) Alhaji Nasiru Ado-Bayero (Bichi) Dr Ibrahim Abubakar ll (Karaye), Alhaji Kabiru Muhammad-Inuwa (Rano) and Alhaji Aliyu Ibrahim-Gaya (Gaya).
Others are the Inspector-General of Police, Director of the State Security Service, the Nigeria Security and Civil Defence Corps and Nigeria Army.
When the case came up for hearing, counsel for the Inspector-General of Police, Abdulsalam Saleh, told the court that all attempts made to serve the first to the 5th respondents failed.
“My lord we filed an affidavit of service. We have done our best to ensure service was made on all the five emirates but could not get to them.
“There was an order from the Federal High Court restraining the police from arresting, intimidating or harassing the respondents that was why we could not serve them,” Saleh said.
Counsel for the applicants, Eyitayo Fatogun (SAN), applied for another date to enable them file all necessary applications for service on the respondents.
Justice Amina Adamu-Aliyu held that, “The 6th respondent could not have refused to serve the respondents because there was an order stopping them from arresting or intimidating the five emirates.
“As far as the law is concerned, you are only serving them papers, the earlier order can not stop you. How can you give protection to the first respondent and say you were unable to serve him?”
She adjourned the matter to June 24, 2024 for hearing in the motion on notice.
