Prominent legal practitioners in Kano have cautioned proponents behind a purported lawsuit seeking to halt the legislative processes leading to the screening and confirmation of Murtala Sule Garo for the vacant seat of deputy governor to desist henceforth.
Besides, the senior lawyers submitted that seeking to interject the constitutional responsibility of an independent arm of government does not only amount to an exercise in futility but also premature and invalid standard practice.
The lawyers were reacting to a notice filed by one Kuliyya Muhammad Salihu and two others before Kano state house of assembly seeking to stop the screening of Murtala Sule Garo, a leading nominee for the position of Deputy Governor in Kano.
The petitioners who claimed to have filed a suit before a Kano high court concerning the nomination of Garo, urged the assembly to suspend any attempt to carry out the legislative processes and procedures for the confirmation of the former Commissioner for Local Government Affairs.
In their separate submission, however, Abdul Adamu Fagge, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) and prominent human rights lawyer Abba Hikima, insisted those claiming to have filed a lawsuit against Garo are simply desperate to interfere with the selection process.
Abdul Adamu Fagge, SAN questioned the procedural and factual foundation of the case being peddled by the petitioners, insisting that courts cannot act on uncertainty or assumptions.
He argued that it is unclear whether any formal screening process has actually commenced, stressing that judicial intervention must be based on established facts rather than speculation. He further maintained that court proceedings require properly verified processes and cannot be grounded in media reports or unconfirmed claims.
Fagge SAN also warned against attempts to interfere with the constitutional functions of the legislature, stressing that each arm of government must be allowed to operate within its defined mandate.
In a separate but related perspective, Barrister Abba Hikima also argued that the matter raises issues of jurisdiction and constitutional boundaries, noting that courts should be cautious in interfering with legislative processes.
He described the case as having political undertones, arguing that legal processes are sometimes used to advance political interests.
Hikima maintained that the State House of Assembly derives its powers from the Constitution and cannot be restrained by the court in the exercise of its legislative functions at this stage.
He warned that allowing such intervention could open the door to constant judicial interference in legislative activities, potentially disrupting governance.
Although the two lawyers approached the matter from different legal angles—one focusing on procedural validity and the other on jurisdictional limits—their views converge in a way that casts doubt on the strength of the suit seeking to halt the screening process.
In this article