Adding to the legal critique, Nigerian human rights activist and lawyer Chidi Odinkalu also condemned Justice Liman’s ruling. Odinkalu, in a series of tweets, accused Justice Liman of overstepping supreme court jurisdiction without proper authorization, stating that “Anyone who does this is a rogue, not a judge.” He added that what Liman has done is not surprising, noting that the inclination of this judgment was already well known well ahead of today.
A Federal High Court in Kano, on Thursday, nullified the reinstatement of Muhammadu Sanusi II as the 16th Emir of Kano. The court also nullified all the actions taken after the controversial reinstatement. The presiding judge, Justice Abdullahi Liman, said, “I hereby order that every step taken by the government is hereby nullified and becomes null and invalid…” This broad nullification reflects a sweeping disapproval of the government’s actions. For a judge, such absolute language can appear as an overreach, suggesting a personal vendetta rather than a balanced legal perspective. “I have listened to the audio of the governor both in Hausa and English after assenting to the law, and I am convinced that the respondents are aware of the order of maintaining status quo…” This statement indicates that the judge has personally verified the governor’s awareness. While thoroughness is commendable, the phrase “I am convinced” can suggest personal bias rather than an impartial judicial stance. “I think it is a very serious matter for anyone to flout the orders of the court and go scot free with it.” The phrase “a very serious matter” and “go scot free” carry a tone of indignation and personal affront. Such language can undermine the perceived neutrality of a judge, making it seem that the ruling is driven by emotion rather than legal principles. “The respondents acted according to their ‘whims and caprices,’ which landed them in a serious mess.” Describing the actions of the respondents as based on “whims and caprices” is dismissive and derogatory. This choice of words can imply a lack of respect for the respondents and suggest that the judge’s decision is influenced by personal feelings rather than objective legal reasoning.
For a judge, impartiality and adherence to the rule of law are paramount. Emotional language and perceived personal affront can undermine the credibility of judicial decisions and erode public trust in the legal system. Judges are expected to base their rulings on legal principles and constitutional mandates, devoid of personal bias or emotional influence.
Prominent human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has raised significant concerns about the jurisdiction and overreaching undertones in Justice Liman’s ruling. Falana argues that both the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court have overstepped their bounds by assuming jurisdiction over chieftaincy disputes, a move he describes as “highly erroneous” and unjustifiable under sections 251 and 254(C) of the Constitution. He emphasized that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have previously ruled on the subject matter, making the intervention of the Federal High Court in the dispute a direct contradiction of these rulings. Falana stated, “The intervention of the Federal High Court in the dispute arising from the deposition of Emir Ado Bayero& Co. as well as the restoration of Emir Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is a brazen repudiation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Tukur v Government of Gongola State (1987) 4 NWLR (117) 517.” He further elaborated that the right to be an emir is not guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution, and therefore, the Federal High Court should have declined jurisdiction to entertain the dispute over the chieftaincy matter in Kano.
Adding to the legal critique, Nigerian human rights activist and lawyer Chidi Odinkalu also condemned Justice Liman’s ruling. Odinkalu, in a series of tweets, accused Justice Liman of overstepping supreme court jurisdiction without proper authorization, stating that “Anyone who does this is a rogue, not a judge.” He added that what Liman has done is not surprising, noting that the inclination of this judgment was already well known well ahead of today. Odinkalu also alleged that the judgment was tainted by scandal and promised to disclose further details in due time.
Psychologically, I find it crucial to explore the emotional aspects present in this situation and I make no attempt to say I am evaluating the person of Liman, just focusing on the words as reported by the media. Here is why Falana and Odinkalu might be right: it seems that Liman was more focused on himself and not the law on chieftaincy matters. As Falana stated, a federal judge like Liman must not get involved as it is outside his jurisdiction. Liman’s emotional language and personal affront indicate that his ruling might have been driven by personal feelings rather than legal principles. This perception is further supported by the judge faulting Governor Abba Yusuf for disobeying the court order restricting him from enforcing the new law. Such behavior from a judge can be seen as controversial, and it is no wonder that the media views him as a man with a contentious history.
In a sharply critical observation, it seems Judge Liman handed down his apparent anger-filled ruling with a sense of determination, knowing he had been promoted and passed the case to another judge. This man just got promoted to the Court of Appeals—a power judge indeed? Alarming as it is, ahead of Justice Liman’s ruling, the Kano State House of Assembly urgently asked the Court of Appeal in Kano to halt further proceedings at the Federal High Court, foreseeing a biased outcome. This preemptive move reflected widespread concerns that Liman would be biased, a sentiment echoed by media outlets labeling him as a judge with a controversial history. The Assembly’s appeal suggests they fully expected a ruling driven more by personal bias than the rule of law, adding another layer of alarm to the situation.
Justice Abdullahi Liman stipulated that even though Governor Abba Yusuf had not been officially served the directive at the time of reinstating Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II, the governor had attested to his awareness of said directive. Mr. Liman underscored the impropriety of the governor’s disregard for information concerning the directive disseminated through social media channels. The Defendants, while acknowledging that they had not been formally served, were cognizant of the directive through social media platforms. The repudiation of social media as a medium for information sharing is deemed erroneous. The court stands prepared to annul any actions taken in defiance of its directives. By opting for subjective and arbitrary decisions, the defendants have found themselves entangled in difficulties. Every action undertaken by the defendant in implementing the law is rescinded, although this ruling does not extend to the law’s validity itself. “In consideration of the matter at hand, the law retains its legal status, but all activities conducted in furtherance of the law are invalidated,” pronounced the judge. Consequently, he referred the case to his federal high court counterpart, Justice Simon Amobeda, for further adjudication.
The Kano Emirate dispute has become a focal point for examining virtual court hearings and the issuance of orders from outside Nigeria, revealing the intricacies and challenges inherent in this modern approach to justice. The controversy surrounding Justice Mohammed Liman’s ex-parte order, made during his stay in the United States, has sparked a legal debate that extends to the roles and responsibilities of court clerks within the virtual hearing framework. Liman appeared clearly upset that his order was not followed while he was in America.
In the context of virtual hearings, the role of court clerks becomes even more significant. They are tasked with facilitating the smooth operation of remote proceedings, which includes setting up the virtual courtroom, managing the technical aspects of the hearing, and ensuring that all parties have access to the necessary documents and evidence. Clerks must also be proficient in using digital platforms and tools employed for virtual hearings, such as Zoom or Skype, to prevent any disruptions that could compromise the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings. For ethical reasons, it will be essential to see the virtual recording to ensure that all required practices were met during Liman’s hearing in America.
The involvement of court clerks in virtual hearings is a testament to the adaptability of the Nigerian judiciary to emerging technologies. However, it also underscores the need for clear guidelines and protocols to govern their conduct and responsibilities in this new environment. The NJC’s guidelines for virtual court proceedings provide a foundation for these practices, but the Kano Emirate dispute has exposed the need for further refinement and clarification of these rules, particularly regarding the issuance of orders by judges from outside the country. As the legal community grapples with these issues, the role of court clerks in virtual hearings remains a critical component of the judicial process. Their ability to navigate the complexities of remote proceedings and uphold the principles of justice will be pivotal in determining the success and credibility of virtual courts in Nigeria. The excuse that we are experimenting with virtual hearings is no excuse
Justice Liman’s judgment and the subsequent transfer of the case caused several reactions, notably from Nigerian human rights activist and lawyer Chidi Odinkalu. In a series of tweets, Odinkalu slammed Justice Liman’s ruling, accusing him of overstepping supreme court jurisdiction without proper authorization, stating that “Anyone who does this is a rogue, not a judge.” He added that what Liman has done is not surprising, noting that the inclination of this judgment was already well known well ahead of today. Odinkalu also alleged that the judgment was tainted by scandal and promised to disclose further details in due time.
Falana’s legal perspective underscores the importance of adhering strictly to the rule of law and the constitution, especially in matters that have been previously adjudicated by higher courts. He asserted, “Since the apex court has said that the right to be an Emir is not a fundamental right under chapter four of the Constitution, the Federal High Court sitting in Kano ought to have declined jurisdiction to continue to entertain the dispute over the chieftaincy matter in Kano.” The debate over jurisdiction is further complicated by the Federal High Court’s assertion that it has the authority to hear human rights violation cases related to the chieftaincy dispute. Falana clarified, “A condition precedent to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction is that the enforcement of fundamental rights or the securing of enforcement thereof should be the main claim and not the accessory claim.”
Psychologically, could this situation suggest a judge whose actions are influenced by personal emotions and biases? Liman’s history of controversial, politically charged rulings appears to align with serving personal interests. His apparent deviation from standard judicial procedures and potential reliance on personal feelings over legal principles might lead to challenges in his judicial career. The involvement of respected human rights activists and lawyers like Falana and Odinkalu highlights the concerning aspects of Judge Liman’s legal practices. What insights does Liman possess that these lawyers do not? It seems his judgments may be clouded by bias and emotion, compromising their integrity.
In a comical observation of our current judicial system where anything goes, we can only wait and see if this man will ever be held accountable—a man with power around him and power of his own. Good god, Nigeria can’t continue like this!
In conclusion, while Justice Liman’s ruling in the Kano Emirate tussle reflects a firm stance against the respondents’ actions, it is essential to consider whether his decision was driven more by emotional responses or firmly grounded in the rule of law and the constitution. Femi Falana’s and Chidi Odinkalu’s critiques emphasize the need for judicial decisions to remain objective and uphold the integrity of the legal system in Nigeria. As the Kano State government and state assembly proceed with their appeals, the approach and language used by Justice Liman will likely come under intense scrutiny, highlighting the unusual nature of this situation.
Professor John Egbeazien Oshodi, born in Uromi, Edo State, Nigeria, is an American-based police and prison scientist, forensic psychologist, public policy psychologist, and legal psychologist. He’s a government advisor on forensic-clinical psychological services in the USA and the founder of the Dr. John Egbeazien Oshodi Foundation for Psychological Health. With a significant role in introducing forensic psychology to Nigeria through N.U.C. and Nasarawa State University, he’s also a former Secretary-General of the Nigeria Psychological Association. He’s taught at esteemed institutions like Florida Memorial University, Florida International University, Nova Southeastern University, and more, and is currently an online faculty member at Weldios University, Nexus International University, and Walden University. [email protected]