Legal opinions expressed by prominent lawyers have, in different ways, raised serious doubts over a purported suit filed at the Kano State High Court seeking to stop the State House of Assembly from screening Murtala Sule Garo for the position of Deputy Governor.
SolaceBase reports that Kuliyya Muhammad Salihu and two others filed the suit through their counsel, Suleiman Mohammed & Co.
The plaintiffs are asking the court to restrain the Assembly from proceeding with any screening process, arguing that Garo is facing criminal allegations bordering on alleged misappropriation of public funds and should therefore be disqualified from consideration.
They are also seeking declarations that any nomination or screening process involving him would be unconstitutional, citing alleged pending criminal charges before the High Court of Justice in Kano.
However, legal practitioners who commented on the matter appeared to independently raise issues that collectively weaken the basis of the suit.
Read Also:Northwest University Kano secures NUC approval for new academic programmes
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Abdul Adamu Fagge, questioned the procedural and factual foundation of the case, insisting that courts cannot act on uncertainty or assumptions.
He argued that it is unclear whether any formal screening process has actually commenced, stressing that judicial intervention must be based on established facts rather than speculation.
He further maintained that court proceedings require properly verified processes and cannot be grounded in media reports or unconfirmed claims.
Fagge SAN also warned against attempts to interfere with the constitutional functions of the legislature, stressing that each arm of government must be allowed to operate within its defined mandate.
In a separate but related perspective, Barrister Abba Hikima argued that the matter raises issues of jurisdiction and constitutional boundaries, noting that courts should be cautious in interfering with legislative processes.
Read Also:House of Reps approves N248bn relief, 10-year restructuring plan for Kano, Jos, Ikeja DisCos
He described the case as having political undertones, arguing that legal processes are sometimes used to advance political interests.
Hikima maintained that the State House of Assembly derives its powers from the Constitution and cannot be restrained by the court in the exercise of its legislative functions at this stage.
He warned that allowing such intervention could open the door to constant judicial interference in legislative activities, potentially disrupting governance.
Although the two lawyers approached the matter from different legal angles—one focusing on procedural validity and the other on jurisdictional limits—their views converge in a way that casts doubt on the strength of the suit seeking to halt the screening process.
The legal debate underscores the broader tension over the extent to which courts can intervene in legislative and political procedures in Nigeria’s democratic framework.
