The dethronement and banishment of the former Emir of Kano, Alhaji Muhammadu Sanusi II by the government of Kano State, raises legal and constitutional issues, pitting old traditions and military era scenarios against Nigeria’s modern 1999 Constitution.
Sanusi, who was banished to another state not under the constitutional control of Kano State government, in far away Nasarawa State, where he would be in exile at the pleasure of the Kano State government, arrived at his new abode late last night to waiting arms of officials of the government of his host state.

However, the former Sarkin Kano’s deposition and banishment, legal analysts said yesterday have raised some legal and constitutional issues, bordering on his rights to a fair hearing and personal liberty.

According to legal experts, the process of his removal and eventual banishment, if challenged in court might be overturned on the grounds that it runs contrary to the principle of fair hearing and personal liberty guaranteed under the constitution.

A senior lawyer, who preferred anonymity, said emphatically that the deposed emir appears to stand a chance if the deposition is challenged in court.

“First, he is already in court challenging the legality of the law under which he was removed. If he wins, and the law is declared illegal, then he would be deemed not to have been removed. Besides, a law abiding governor ought to have waited for the court to determine the legality or otherwise of that law,” he said.

He continued: “Second, it did not appear that Sanusi was given a fair hearing. His removal appeared to have been initiated in a day and concluded on that same day. Fair hearing is a principle of natural justice, failure to observe it may render the proceeding leading to his removal a nullity.

“Thirdly, closely related to the above is whether the Kano Executive Council followed the law under which he was removed. If the court bolds that the law- the Kano Emirate Council Law, was validly passed and constitutional, the court would look at the procedure adopted in removing Sanusi to see if the council adhered to the provisions of the law in removing him.

“Lastly, on his banishment to Nasarawa State, Sanusi can test the validity of the provisions of the Kano Emirate Council Law against the 1999 constitution especially the provisions of chapter 2 precisely the fundamental human right to movement.”

Another lawyer said: “While the state government might be empowered to appoint and remove emirs, it is most unlikely it does not have the power to take away the deposed emir’s freedom. To be an emir is a privilege, not a right. He does not have a right to be an emir, but he does have a right to live in any place of his choice.

“Emirs are citizens of Nigeria, who are equally entitled to the protection of the 1999 Constitution as altered. The constitutional and human rights of Sanusi should not be compromised, just because he has been removed as emir.

This is more so when the banishment was done administratively and not via an order of court.”

The lawyers supported their propositions with the case of the deposed Emir of Gwandu, Alhaji Mustapha Jokolo.

Two courts, including a Kebbi State High Court and the Court of Appeal, sitting in Sokoto had nullified his dethronement.

The Court of Appeal, led by Justice Tunde Awotoye, held that Jokolo’s deposition by the former governor of Kebbi State, Senator Adamu Aliero, contravened the provisions of the law.

The panel held that the action specifically ran against Sections 6 and 7 of the Chief Appointment and Deposition Law of the state.

The court held that from evidence placed before it, the state government neither made an inquiry into the allegation against Jokolo nor consulted the state Council of Chiefs before carrying out the deposition.

Sanusi’s lawyer, Mr. Abubakar Mahmoud, spoke along these lines last night, saying he would, however, need his client’s instruction before he could challenge the deposition in court, say the dethronement was reversible.

Specifically, he said the deposition did not meet the requirement of the law, while the banishment offends Sanusi’s constitutional right to personal liberty.