Renowned human rights lawyer, Femi Falana, SAN, has sharply criticized the Federal High Court and National Industrial Court for their decisions in the ongoing emirship tussle in Kano State.
He described these decisions as “highly erroneous” and argued that they contradict the Nigerian Constitution.
Falana explained that the courts’ decisions could not be justified under Sections 251 and 254(C) of the constitution.
“The Federal High Court and National Industrial Court lack jurisdiction to determine chieftaincy matters,” he said in a statement.
He urged judges and lawyers to recognize that disputes related to chieftaincy and other local matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of each state.
Falana emphasized that using fundamental human rights enforcement to address chieftaincy matters is inappropriate.
“Chieftaincy is not a matter of fundamental rights and cannot be enforced under the provisions of section 31 of the Constitution,” he stated.
Citing numerous legal precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court, Falana argued that the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court have overstepped their bounds by involving themselves in chieftaincy disputes.
He referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1987), which held that “the right to be Emir is not guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights provisions of the Constitution, and the Federal High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter.”
Falana further supported his position with another Supreme Court ruling in Olaniyi v. Aroyehum (1991), which clarified that the right to be a traditional ruler is not a fundamental right enforceable under the Constitution.
“It cannot be seriously argued that there is a fundamental right to be a ‘Chief’. It is not a human right, even though it is a privilege claimed by human beings in an organized society,” Falana quoted the ruling.
In his critique, Falana also addressed a recent National Industrial Court ruling, which ordered the reinstatement of a traditional ruler in Kaduna State. The court had justified its jurisdiction by linking the traditional ruler’s monthly salary to public service.
Falana rejected this rationale, stating, “Section 254(C)(1) of the Constitution does not confer jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court to hear and determine chieftaincy matters.”
He pointed out that the payment of stipends to traditional rulers does not make them public officers or employees.
Falana cited “the Supreme Court case of Chief John Eze v. Okechukwu (2002), which held that traditional rulers are not public officers and thus are not entitled to certain legal protections reserved for public officers.”
Falana acknowledged that deposed traditional rulers do have legal recourse, but it should be sought in state high courts.
He referred to “the case of Chief Joseph Odetoye Oyeyemi v. Commissioner for Local Govt., Kwara State (1992), where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a traditional ruler who was not given a fair hearing before his deposition.”
Summarizing his argument, Falana stated that the Federal High Court should decline jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters unless the issue pertains specifically to banishment or detention.
He cited “the case of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi v. Attorney-General of Kano State (2020), where the Federal High Court ruled against the banishment of the former Emir of Kano.”
In conclusion, Falana called on judges and lawyers to respect the jurisdictional boundaries established by the Constitution.
He reminded them of the Supreme Court’s warning in Tukur v. Government of Gongola State: “Courts in this country, without exception, have no power to prescribe jurisdiction for themselves. Neither do they have power to expand or reduce their area of jurisdiction.”