A Federal High Court in Kano has upheld the rights of the deposed Emir of Kano, Alhaji Aminu Ado Bayero, affirming his freedom of movement and civil liberties. The court also ordered the Kano State Government to pay N10 million in damages to the former emir.
In his ruling, Justice Simon Amobeda of the Federal High Court 3 accepted the withdrawal of reliefs Order 1-2 by the applicant’s counsel, recognizing their legal right to do so, thus removing them from the case. He clarified that the court first needed to establish its jurisdiction before addressing the main issues of the case.
Justice Amobeda confirmed the court’s jurisdiction, stating that the case involved the fundamental human rights of the applicant, which the Constitution empowers the court to protect. He noted that the applicant’s primary reliefs (2-7) included a demand for N5 billion in damages for human rights violations.
“The court is obligated to protect every citizen’s rights, but this protection requires substantial evidence of rights violations, which the applicant has successfully provided,” the judge stated.
The judge recounted that in 2019, the Kano State Government used the kingmakers to select a new emir. However, on May 23, 2024, the government announced via social media that the applicant was deposed and instructed the police to arrest him, giving him 48 hours to vacate the palace.
“I find that without lawful justification, the applicant’s fundamental rights to liberty have been threatened, violating Section 35(1) of the 1999 Constitution,” Justice Amobeda ruled.
He added, “The government’s actions, which placed the applicant under house arrest and prevented him from conducting his lawful business, constitute a blatant violation of his right to freedom of movement under Section 41(1) of the 1999 Constitution.”
The court restrained the Police, DSS, Army, Air Force, and Navy, as well as their agents, from arresting, detaining, or harassing the applicant. It also mandated the Kano State Government and the second respondent to pay N10 million for the breach and potential breach of the applicant’s rights to personal liberty and freedom of movement.
However, the judge dismissed the request for the cost of filing and prosecuting the case.
