By Chris Onuoha

Ibrahim Mukhtar, Kano State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice, speaks on the removal of Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi as the Emir of Kano.

What do you make of the appointment of deposed emir Sanusi into a board by Kaduna State government?

Kano State government is happy with him if he gets anything beneficial or something that will develop him personally. The action we have taken was not as a result of a vendetta; it is something that has to do with the office of the Emir of Kano which he occupied.

Now, the role he played was not satisfactory to Kano State government and that’s why the state government took that particular decision to depose him. We are happy even if he gets something more than what Kaduna State government has given him.

So what is the point of banishment if he takes a job in Kaduna; meaning the banishment won’t take effect?

You have to ask Kaduna State government because they are fully aware of the circumstances before they employed him. If they have decided to employ him, they know the way they want to work with him. I am not in the position to say how he will work with Kaduna State government while under banishment.

Was it your advice that government should depose and banish the Emir of Kano?

You see, this issue of banishment has been an old practice right from the colonial days. Any emir from the northern part of the country who is removed would be taken out of his jurisdiction probably in order not to have two emirs within same jurisdiction because if he remains there, many people may not follow the incumbent in office.

To avoid possible frictions and conflicts, the deposed emir is taken out of that jurisdiction. It has happened to many emirs including Sultan Dasuki and Emir of Gwandu. Dasuki was removed and banished to Kaduna State. It has been a practice and the reason they are doing that is to maintain peace and possibly the security of even the deposed emir.

Was it really your advice?

You see, we have to get the point clear.  If an emir is removed not only in Kano and, like I said, throughout the northern part of the country, it has been the practice.

Now, if that’s what you say, does the banishment not conflict with Section 45 of the Constitution that says people do have freedom of movement, in essence, the practice of banishment is no longer relevant at this time and age given the laws of the country?

You see, reading Section 45 is not enough. We have to know the complete circumstances whether that particular provision will apply or not; it depends on the facts on the ground and not just reading the Constitution. If you look at it, the deposed Emir was taken from his palace to another place outside Kano and this was done by security operatives. From my understanding, that was security decision and security action.

Are you saying that Section 45 can’t apply to him in this case?

That’s not what I am saying. We have to consider the law of facts and circumstances. If it was a decision of a security agency, you must consider the agency’s report, the reasons they have decided to take such action. For you to do justice to the matter, you must have complete facts and not disjointed facts, not assumption.

You need to have a report from the security agency and not one sided version. What of if the banishment was for the security of the emir himself and his family or the community. For example, there were reports that some people attempted to enter the palace to make trouble but they were stopped. Nobody knows their intention. You can never jump into a conclusion without getting a security report.

READ ALSO: People Talk: On Emir Sanusi’s dethronement, banishment (1)

Has he been banished from Kano?

Of course, the emir is not in town. He has been taken out of Kano.

Before he was dethroned, there were cases he instituted before the court against government, even against the anti corruption agency in the state challenging certain things. What happens to those cases because many say the state government took the law into their hands by removing him?

Well, the state government has not taken any law into their hand, but let me explain that the decision to remove the emir from office is administrative. It doesn’t touch on the issues pending before the court. All the court cases have nothing to do with his removal or the dethronement of the emir.

Are the anti corruption agencies going to proceed with the prosecution of the deposed emir or not?

Well, there is no decision on that for now. I can’t pre-empt or say whether it will continue or not.

Do we see all those cases abandoned now that the state government has removed the emir?

No! The Emir of Kano was removed in good faith and not because investigations were conducted or the government wanted to remove the emir. If it was the intention of government, they would have done that right from the word go, when litigation was going on. Sanusi had about three cases and government did not do anything. One of the cases went in his favour and another went against him. There is one pending in court and that has to do with the Emirate Council.

But I must tell you that the emir himself as a person has not instituted any action against government in relation to his appointment as Emir of Kano. All those actions were instituted by the kingmakers of Kano Emirate Council and about 21 Elders who filed another action before another court, and a member of Kano House of Assembly instituted another action. So, government does not have hand in all these and it may not be the reason for his removal.

Can you clarify the issue of banishment? How does it affect the fundamental right of free movement in the face of constitutional provisions?

If you listened to the Secretary of State Government (SSG) when he was addressing the press on the removal of the emir from office, there was never a time he said that the emir was banished from Kano State. He said the emir had been removed and a new emir appointed and the issue of banishment was not part of the decision of Kano State government.

This banishment was not part of the decision of Kano State government. It is the media that said he was banished, but he was just taken away from Kano State and that’s what I know. There was no such decision as banishment to the best of my knowledge.

• Interview first aired on Channels TV

Vanguard