Sokoto High Court Orders Stay of Action on Criminal Charge Against Ahmed Dan Baba

Justice Malami Umar Dogo Daji of the Sokoto State High Court has ordered that all actions relating to the criminal charge against Hassan Ahmed Dan Baba at the Upper Shariah Court 1 be stayed, pending the determination of the suit brought against the Upper Shariah Court and Inuwa Abdul Kadir by Dan Baba.

The presiding judge adjourned the matter to April 18, 2017, during which all actions against Dan Baba at the Upper Shariah Court must remain pending.

Dan Baba had petitioned the Grand Khadi of Sokoto State against a judge of the Upper Shariah Court 1 Sokoto for alleged violation of his oath of office by acting in a biased and prejudicial manner against him.

The solicitors in their petition dated March 24, 2017, said their client was wrongfully served in respect of criminal charge between Inuwa Abdulkapir V Hassan Ahmed Dan Baba in case No CR/134/17.

The petitioner said: “We are solicitors to Hassan Ahmed Dan Baba, the accused person in the above charge, and we have his instructions to petition your good office with regards to the above judge having violated his oath of office by acting in a biased and prejudicial manner against our client.

“Sir, our client was wrongfully served a criminal summons through proxy to appear before the above court to answer to some allegations leveled against him by the complainant. He was served and given two days to appear before the court.

“Upon the receipt of the said summons, we filed a notice of preliminary objection challenging the proprietary of the summons as a gross violation of section 36(6)(b) of the 1999 CFRN as amended which provides that every person who is charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and that since the accused was not even served personally, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and that the court should in that circumstances strike out the case.

“Sir, we were in court on March 16, 2017, to argue our preliminary objection having filed and served the complainant. On that day, neither the complainant nor his solicitor was in court and the senior judge who came in at 10a.m. told us that his colleague who would preside over our case sent words to him that he will not be sitting and as such we should take a date. Upon telling the court that we came in from outside jurisdiction, one of the registrars of the court was called upon to give us date and we took March 30, 2017 as the next adjourned date. This is in the records of the court.”