A Kano State High Court has dismissed a motion filed by the National Chairman of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, seeking to stop his trial in an 11-count corruption case involving alleged bribery, conspiracy, and diversion of public funds.
Presiding Judge, Justice Amina Adamu Aliyu, ruled that Ganduje’s preliminary objection — along with similar motions filed by his co-defendants — was “incompetent and lacking in merit.” She reaffirmed the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, paving the way for a full trial.
“The charges before this court are competent, and the power to investigate criminal matters is not exclusive to the police,” Justice Aliyu said. “The Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission is legally empowered to probe such allegations.”
The case stems from allegations dating back to Ganduje’s tenure as governor of Kano State. The charges, brought by the Kano State Government, accuse Ganduje and seven others of misappropriating billions of naira in public funds.
Among the defendants are Ganduje’s wife, Prof. Hafsat Umar, and several individuals and corporate entities including Abubakar Bawuro, Umar Abdullahi Umar, Jibrilla Muhammad, Safari Textiles Ltd., Lasage General Enterprises Ltd., and Lamash Properties Ltd.
The judge also issued a summons to Lamash Properties Ltd., the sixth defendant, and fixed July 30 and 31 for commencement of hearing.
Defence vs Prosecution: Legal Arguments
Ganduje’s lead counsel, Lydia Oluwakemi Oyewo, had filed the objection on November 18, 2024, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the charges were fundamentally flawed.
Other defence counsels — including Chief M. N. Duru, SAN, Muhammad Shehu, Abubakar Ahmad, and Faruk Asekome — submitted similar motions between September and October 2024, echoing the jurisdictional challenge.
But counsel for the prosecution, Adeola Adedipe, SAN, urged the court to dismiss all applications, describing them as “tactical maneuvers intended to delay justice.”
“These objections are legally baseless. They are calculated attempts to frustrate the course of justice,” Adedipe argued.
In her ruling, Justice Aliyu maintained that the court would proceed with the trial “regardless of the absence of the defendants.” She emphasized the court’s duty to uphold due process and ensure that justice is neither delayed nor denied.
