Constitutionality or Otherwise of the Dethronement and Banishment of Emir Sanusi

TIntroduction he news of the dethronement and banishment of the former Emir of Kano on the 9th of March, 2020 by the Governor of the State which appeared in both print and electronic media is no longer a rumour, as a new Emir of Kano was appointed by the latter the same day, in the person of Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero.

This perdurable development has generated hues and cries from political pundits, legal minds and concerned citizens in different quarters, and divided.

While some have condemned in totality the action of the Governor, some others have hailed the Governor for standing his ground against the dethroned Emir of the Kano Emirate.

It is however, apposite to consider the constitutionality and legality of the act of the Kano State Governor, in the spotlight of the 1999 Constitution and other relevant authorities.

The Governor of a State is the Chief Executive of the State, and his powers are derived from a combined reading of Section 4(7) and 5(2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended).

Section 4(7) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 provides that:

Governor of Kano State has the constitutional power to remove/dethrone the Emir of Kano State. However, such removal must be within the circumference of the law, and due process must be followed.

In the Supreme Court decision of Akuneziri v Okenwa & Ors (2000) LPELR-393(SC), the Apex Court held that the power to appoint and remove a traditional ruler is vested in the Governor of a State, pursuant to the enabling laws of the House of Assembly of the State.

The Apex Court held that :

“I also agree with learned counsel for the 1st Respondent that under Imo State Chieftaincy Law No. 22 of 1978, the authority to remove a traditional ruler is the Governor. He does so by withdrawal of the certificate of recognition issued to the traditional ruler which signified his appointment”.

It is also pertinent to recall that, sometime in 1963, the Emir of Kano Muhammadu Sanusi I was removed/ dethroned by the Sardauna of Sokoto, and in 2005, and the Governor of Kebbi State dethroned the Emir of Gwandu, HRH Alhaji Al-Mustapha Jokolo and banished him to Nasarawa State.

HRH Alhaji Al-Mustapha Jokolo approached the Court to challenge his banishment, vide fundamental action. The Court of Appeal in Attorney-General & Commissioner of Justice, Kebbi State v HRH Alhaji Al-Mustapha Jokolo & Ors (2013) LPELR-22349(CA), upholding the judgement of the trial Court held inter alia that:

“The sum total of it is that, the Governor was not only satisfied in dethroning the 1st Respondent as the 19th Emir of Gwandu, but showed no respect to his dignity as an individual by inhuman and degrading treatment, where he was held like a slave, contrary to Section 34(1) (a)-(b) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. What the Governor's agents did, constituted slavery. Slavery is a situation in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune, and liberty of another. Furthermore, the forceful removal and handcuffing of the 1st Respondent from the National Hospital Abuja, was to ensure that he did not travel to the United States of America for further medical attention. But, Section 41(1) of the Constitution does not confer such powers on the Governor. I think his conduct was calculated to endanger the life of the 1st Respondent contrary to the provisions of Section 33(1) of the Constitution which provides that, "Every person has a right to life and no one shall be deprived intentionally of his life, save in execution of the sentence of a court in respect of a criminal offence of which he has been found guilty." Furthermore, Section 34(1) of the Constitution provides that, "Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly (a) no person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman degrading treatment; (b) no person shall be held in slavery or servitude; and (c) no person shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour." Per TUR, J.C.A. (Pp. 66-67, paras. F-C)

What can be gleaned from the decision of the Court of Appeal above, is that the Governor of a State has no right to act outside the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, to deprive a dethroned traditional ruler his fundamental rights.

Section 35 (1) of the said Constitution provides that: Every citizen of Nigeria is

except in the circumstances set out in subsections (a) to (f) thereof. Section 40 of the same Constitution provides that:

On the

issue at hand:

Section 41(1) of the Constitution is germane and it provides thus:

From the foregoing, it is therefore, clear as the daylight that the banishment and deportation from Kano State by the Governor of Kano State on or about the 9th of March, 2020, of Muhammad Sanusi II to Nasarawa State as reported, is most unconstitutional, and illegal.

By the said banishment and deportation, Alhaji Lamido Sanusi has been unduly and wrongfully denied his constitutional rights

- including the people of Kano Emirate of Kano State; and to

as respectively provided in the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999.

Suffice it to note that, though some persons have argued that the Emirate Law, 2019 allows for the banishment of a deposed Emir, it suffices to state that, such provision is against the enshrined provisions of the Constitution, and as such, it is void ab initio pursuant to Section 1(3) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

One point must be stated clearly; Nigeria has moved from the Medieval era and gone beyond the era when British Administrative officers appointed to administer Colonial Territories and Protectorates, could at the shout of Jack Robinson, dethrone and deport native chiefs or emirs, restricting their movement to certain geographical locations within or beyond their domain in the name of the Queen of England. In a democratic system, right of law and respect for the civil rights and obligations of persons residing in this country must take the centre stage, and repugnant laws and practices must give way to sacrosanct provisions of the Constitution.

From whatever angle one considers the issue at hand, the Governor of a State has the power to recognise and remove a traditional ruler pursuant to an enabling law of the State House of Assembly. However, the Governor of a State, not being a law enforcement agency, cannot deprive a citizen, the enjoyment of his/her fundamental right as enshrined in Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution.

In the circumstance, it is imperative to state that, if those entrusted with the power to govern or rule Nigeria have no respect to the traditional institution or the citizens, how could these personalities be respected abroad? That will not be possible, as charity must begins from home.