A Kano High Court has postponed proceedings in the case involving former governor, Abdullahi Ganduje over the ownership of a multi-billion-naira inland port project.
Ganduje and three others are facing 10 charges, including criminal conspiracy, misuse of public funds, breach of trust, and conflict of interest.
The Kano State Government filed the charges against him, his aide Abubakar Bawuro, his lawyer, Adamu Aliyu-Sanda, and a former Managing Director of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, Hassan Bello.
The case was stalled on Monday after a strong disagreement between the defence and the prosecution teams.
Lead defence lawyer, A.S. Gadanya (SAN), questioned the legal approval, known as a fiat, that allowed the state’s legal team to prosecute the case.
He argued that the document presented in court was meant for a different matter and did not authorise the current prosecution. Based on that, he asked the court to nullify all previous proceedings handled by the prosecution.
However, the state’s lawyer, R.O. Zakariyya, disagreed. He told the court that the prosecution team had proper legal backing. Zakariyya presented what he described as a valid fiat, which he said clearly listed all members of the prosecution team and empowered them to handle the case.
Justice Yusuf Ubale of High Court No. 2, sitting at the Audu Bako Secretariat in Kano, listened to both sides but did not give an immediate ruling. Instead, he fixed 6 May to deliver a decision on the defence’s objection.
According to the state government, Ganduje and the other defendants allegedly worked together to transfer 80 percent of the shares of Dala Inland Dry Port, including the state government’s 20 percent stake to a private company identified as “City Green Enterprise.”
Prosecutors also claim that more than N4.49 billion belonging to Kano State was used to fund infrastructure projects at the port, such as road construction, electricity supply, and fencing, allegedly for personal and family gain.
The defendants are further accused of using their official positions to divert public resources for private benefit, in violation of financial and constitutional rules.
The case is expected to continue after the court rules on the legal challenge in May.