•El-Rufai
The Kaduna Division of the Court of Appeal has ordered the Federal High Court (FHC) to hear afresh former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rurai’s request for the enforcement of his fundamental right against the House of Assembly.
The appellate court said the July 30, 2024 ruling of the FHC, Kaduna Division, breached El-Rufai’s right to fair hearing.
It nullified the judgment and ordered the Chief Judge of the FHC, Justice John Tsoho, to reassign the ex-governor’s application for fresh hearing, reports The Nation.
Following his indictment over alleged N400 billion fraud by the House of Assembly, El-Rufai had approached the Kaduna Division of the FHC for the enforcement of his rights.
He claimed that the Assembly set up an ad-hoc Committee to investigate loans, contracts, financial transactions and other related matters of the Government of Kaduna State from May 29, 2015 to May 29, 2023.
He said in the course of the hearing of the Committee, about 70 persons were listed and invited.
El-Rufai said he was not invited by the Assembly till the committee concluded its hearing and issued a final report which indicted him.
He alleged a breach of his fundamental rights to fair hearing against the Assembly and the Attorney-General of Kaduna State.
The former governor also faulted the procedures adopted by the court to refuse the hearing of his application.
But Justice Coram Aikawa of the FHC declined jurisdiction to hear the matter and transferred the case to the Kaduna State High Court on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction by the lower court.
In a March 17, 2026 lead judgment delivered by Justice Onyekachi Aja Otisi, with concurrence by Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo and Justice Sybil Nwaka Gbagi, the Court of Appeal said there was merit in El-Rufai’s application.
Otisi said: “It is my considered view that what happened at the lower court on July 18, 2024 was far more than a mere refusal of an application for adjournment. This is because it resulted in a denial of the fundamental right of fair hearing of the appellant guaranteed by Section 36 (1) of the Constitution.
“The lower Court had the duty to do justice according to law and not by sentiment. The justice of the suit leading to the Appeal was for the lower court to set aside the proceedings of 18/7/2024 on the ground that the Appellant was not afforded fair hearing.
“The consequence of the denial of the right to fair hearing is that the proceedings and decision of the lower court, no matter how well conducted, amount to a nullity and is liable to be set aside.
“Therefore, having found that the proceedings of the lower court conducted on July 18, 2024 was in breach of the Appellant’s right to fair hearing, the judgment delivered thereon on July 30, 2024 was a nullity, and liable to be set aside.
“Accordingly, the said judgment delivered on 30/7/2024, being in breach of the appellant’s right to fair hearing, is hereby set aside for being a nullity.
“The sole issue for determination is thus resolved in favour of the appellant, and against the respondents. In the light of the holding that the judgment delivered on July 30, 2024 was a nullity, the determination of the other issues raised in this appeal, obviously, have become merely academic. This court will therefore, refrain from considering them.
“The appeal has merit, and it is hereby allowed. The lower court’s proceedings of 18/7/2024, as well as the judgment of July 7, 2024, are hereby set aside.
“It is ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Hon. Chief Judge of the lower court for hearing de novo before another Judge of the lower court. It is further ordered that parties shall bear their costs.”
