Prominent legal practitioners in Kano have cautioned those behind a purported lawsuit seeking to halt the legislative process leading to the screening and confirmation of Murtala Sule Garo for the vacant position of Deputy Governor to desist.
The senior lawyers argued that any attempt to interfere with the constitutional responsibilities of an independent arm of government is not only an exercise in futility but also premature and contrary to established legal practice.
They were reacting to a notice filed by one Kuliyya Muhammad Salihu and two others before the Kano State House of Assembly, seeking to stop the screening of Murtala Sule Garo, a leading nominee for the position of Deputy Governor in the state.
The petitioners, who claimed to have filed a suit before a Kano High Court concerning Garo’s nomination, urged the Assembly to suspend any move to carry out legislative procedures for the confirmation of the former Commissioner for Local Government Affairs.
In their separate submissions, Abdul Adamu Fagge, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and prominent human rights lawyer, Abba Hikima, insisted that those claiming to have filed a lawsuit against Garo are merely attempting to interfere with the selection process.
Fagge questioned the procedural and factual basis of the case being peddled by the petitioners, noting that courts cannot act on uncertainty or assumptions.
He argued that it remains unclear whether any formal screening process has 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 based on media reports or unconfirmed claims.
Fagge 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 view, 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.
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 casting doubt on the strength of the suit seeking to halt the screening process.
