Legal setback for El-Rufai as court declines jurisdiction in N423b fraud case

The struggle by the former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, to fight for his fundamental human rights in the case of alleged siphoning of state funds amounting to over N423 billion at the Federal High Court, Kaduna, suffered a setback as the court declined jurisdiction.

The landmark ruling by the Federal High Court in Kaduna, on Friday, is in the suit where the former governor is seeking the court to set aside the indictment of the ad hoc committee report of the Kaduna State House Assembly over alleged corruption, among other declaratory reliefs.

Delivering two separate rulings before the judgement, Hon. Justice R.M. Aikawa held that the applicant failed to prove any of the circumstances that would warrant setting aside the proceedings of the court as sought by the applicant and, therefore, dismissed the application for the judge to recuse himself, having failed to provide cogent reasons or facts for the court to do so, as decided by a plethora of decided cases.

Consequently, the court declined jurisdiction on the subject matter and, rather than dismissing or striking out the suit as prayed for by both counsels to the respondents, the court exercised its powers pursuant to Section 22(2) of the Federal High Court Act and transferred the suit to the Kaduna State Chief Judge for determination by the High Court of the state.

Meanwhile, Femi Falana (SAN) with Sani Katu (SAN) were counsels to the 1st respondent, while Sule Shuaibu (SAN), Attorney-General of Kaduna State, with Jummai Danazumi, Esq., were counsels to the 2nd respondent.

A cross-section of lawyers later briefed journalists after the judgement, saying that “the ruling should be seen as a victory for the rule of law and a testament to the independence of the judiciary.”

“It sends a strong message that the courts will not be swayed by attempts to undermine the legal process,” one of the counsels added.

The case has been closely watched by legal experts and observers during proceedings, as they also praised the court’s decision as a triumph of justice and fairness.