Kogi Government Appeals Removal Of Ohinoyi Of Ebiraland

Kogi Government Appeals Removal Of Ohinoyi Of Ebiraland

The government of Kogi State has appealed the ruling by a state High Court in Lokoja, which removed Tijani Ahmed-Anaje as the  Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

The state’s Attorney General, Muzi Abdullahi (SAN), confirmed this development to Channels Television on Tuesday.

Recall that the Lokoja High Court, presided over by Justice Umar Salisu, had on Monday issued an order nullifying the appointment of Ahmed-Anaje as the paramount ruler of Ebiraland.

The ruling followed a case filed by three plaintiffs, Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf, and Abdulrahman Suberu, who challenged the appointment process of the traditional ruler.

The plaintiffs argued that the procedure used in selecting Ahmed-Anaje violated the Procedure of Ascension to the Throne of Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, Edict No. 3 of 1997.

The suit, originally filed in Okene, was later transferred to Lokoja, where the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the removal of the Ohinoyi.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Governor Ahmed Ododo and the State Attorney General filed an appeal at the Abuja Court of Appeal, naming Adeku-Ojiah, Yusuf, and Suberu as respondents.

The appeal seeks to:

– Overturn the ruling of the Lokoja High Court

– Set aside the removal of Ahmed-Anaje

– Dismiss the suit for lack of merit

The Kogi government, in its five grounds of appeal, argued that:

The trial judge erred in law by heavily relying on Exhibit P.O.4, which was annexed to an Affidavit of Facts in Response to the defendants’ preliminary objection.

The court wrongly based its ruling on an interlocutory decision in Suit No. HCO/12c/2006, which was unrelated to the selection of the current Ohinoyi.

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case but proceeded to deliver a judgment that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The decision was perverse and did not align with the weight of evidence presented during the trial.

The ruling was based on an outdated legal precedent, which was not applicable to the case of Ahmed-Anaje’s appointment.

The Attorney General, Abdullahi, maintained that the appointment of Ahmed-Anaje was done in accordance with established traditional laws.

He further stated that the judgment, if upheld, could create a dangerous precedent for traditional institutions in the state.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *