His Highness Muhammadu Sanusi II Con v. Kano State Public Complaint And Anti-corruption Commission (2023)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report – COURT OF APPEAL

ITA GEORGE MBABA, JCA (Delivering the leading judgment)

Appellant filed this appeal against the decision of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/KN/CS/54/2020, delivered on 8th June, 2020 by Hon. Justice A. L. Allagoa, whereof the learned trial court dismissed the case of the Appellant to enforce his fundamental rights.

At the trial court appellant, as applicant, had filed the action to enforce his fundamental rights, seeking as follows against the respondents:

1. A declaration that the refusal of the 1st respondent in its letter dated 5th March, 2020 on the request of the applicant to furnish him with facilities and allow him adequate time to prepare for his defence concerning the criminal investigation activities by the 1st respondent is a breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.
2. A declaration that the refusal of the 1st respondent in its letter dated 5th March, 2020 on the request of the applicant to furnish him with the petition leading to the criminal investigation activities to enable him prepare for his defence is a breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.
3. A declaration that the refusal of the 1st respondent to give the names and particulars of the companies allegedly linked to the applicant in the criminal investigation activities to enable him prepare for his defence is a breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.
4. A declaration that the refusal of the 1st respondent to disclose the nature of interest of the applicant to the companies allegedly linked to allow him prepare for his defence is a breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.
5. A declaration that the refusal of the 1st respondent to furnish the applicant with the statements and the documents obtained by the 1st respondent in his absence to enable him prepare for his defence is a breach of the applicant’s fundamental right to fair hearing.
6. A declaration that by the antecedents of the 1st respondent action, it is prejudiced and biased towards the applicant.
7. A declaration that the 1st respondent as constituted is such that its impartiality and independence towards the applicant is in question.
8. An order setting aside the letter of invitation dated 2nd March, 2020.
9. An order setting aside the letter of the 1st respondent to the applicant dated 5th March, 2020.
10. An order of court permanently and perpetually restraining the 1st respondent from investigating the affairs of the applicant.
11. An order of court restraining the 2nd and 3rd respondents from giving effect or acting on any purported report, finding or recommendation reached by the 1st respondent against the applicant.
12. And for such further order(s) as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this matter.

The application was supported by statement of the appellant and affidavits, including a verifying affidavit and further affidavit. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd – 4th respondents filed their counter affidavits – one by the 1st and 2nd respondents and the other by the 3rd and 4th respondent.

The fulcrum of the case of appellant was the letter of 1st respondent dated 2/3/2020 to the appellant, where in the Kano State Public Complaint & Anti-Corruption Commission, stated as follows:

This Commission is investigating an alleged violation of the provision of Section 22, 23 and 26 of the Kano State Public Complaint & Anti-Corruption Commission Law 2008 (as amended)in the management of land reserved as Gandun Sarki spread (sic) all over the state.

Consequently, investigation reveals that all alleged illegal transactions for the sales of the landed properties at Darmanawa, Hotoro and Bubbugaje belonging to the Emirate was done by the trio of Shehu Muhammad Dankadai (Sarkin Shanu), Sarki Abdullahi Ibrahim (Makaman Kano) and Mustapha KawuYahaya (Dan Isan Lapal) based on the alleged instruction of His Highness.

Investigation further reveals that, some of the proceeds of the sales remitted to the Emirate Council can be trace (sic) to the companies of interest by His Highness. It is based on the foregoing and in compliance with the spirit of fair hearing the commission request for his Highness to come forward for clarification on Thursday 5th March, 2020 by 11:00 am (See exhibit on page 100 of the records)

Appellants counsel had written to the 1st respondent on the said 5/3/2020 to request for:

(1) The petition leading to the investigation

(2) The names of the companies of interest of His Highness and

(3) The statement and documents obtained in the absence of appellant.

See exhibit 2 or page 101 of the records, wherein appellant also reminded the 1st respondent that its power to investigate crime was being challenged in suit No. K/208/2019, appellant in the letter also requested for postponement of the meeting to 25th March, 2020, in order for the sorting of the request above and for time to prepare his defence upon studying the documents requested.

The 1st respondent responded, hurriedly, on the same day, 5th March, 2020, as per exhibit 3, to say that it would not grant the request. It said: