Appeal court sets aside suspension of Magaji as Kano anti-corruption boss

The court of appeal in Abuja has set aside the Code of Conduct Tribunal (CCT) order, suspending Muhuyi Magaji as chairman of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission (PCACC).

Umaru Fadawu, who led a three-member panel of justices that delivered the judgment on Friday, also ordered that the case against Magaji be reassigned to another panel of the CCT.

The Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) is prosecuting Magaji at the CCT in Abuja on charges of breach of the code of conduct for public officers.

He was arraigned on 10 counts before the Danladi Umar-led CCT, where he denied all the charges.

On April 5, the tribunal dismissed Magaji’s objection to jurisdiction and gave an order for his suspension pending the outcome of the case to avoid any interference with it.

The CCT chairman directed the Kano state governor and the secretary to the state government (SSG) to appoint the most appropriate officer to take over as acting chairman of the commission, pending the hearing and determination of the case.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Magaji, through his counsel, Adeola Adedipe, approached the court of appeal.

Adedipe argued that the CCT violated the law by denying his client the right to a fair trial, fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence.

He maintained that the tribunal, at an interlocutory stage, effectively determined his client’s guilt by ordering him to step aside as the chairman of PCACC.

The lawyer described the ruling as “a miscarriage of justice.”

He also argued that the tribunal erred in law when, without the requisite jurisdiction, it granted the reliefs sought by CCB, giving specific orders to Kano governor Abba Yusuf and SSG, “knowing full well that they are not parties to the present charge as constituted; it thereby occasioned a miscarriage of justice”.

He further said that the tribunal also erred in law when it adjudged Magaji as capable of interfering with CCB’s witnesses in PCACC, while no material evidence was put forward to support such a speculative claim.

Delivering judgment, the appellate court agreed with Adedipe’s arguments that the tribunal’s order was prejudicial and amounted to his client’s denial of a fair hearing.