Court halts execution of judgment removing Ohinoyi of Ebiraland

​​The high court in Lokoja, Kogi state capital, has ordered a stay of execution of the judgment sacking Tijani Ahmed-Anaje from office as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

Umar Salisu, the trial judge, on February 3, ordered Ahmed-Anaje not to parade himself as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

In January 2024, Yahaya Bello, former governor of Kogi, appointed Ahmed-Anaje as the new Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

However, the appointment was challenged by Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf, and Abdulrahaam Suberu in December 2024.

The plaintiffs sued Usman Ododo, the incumbent governor of Kogi; Muzi Abdullahi, the state attorney general and commissioner for justice; and Ahmed-Anaje, the first, second, and third defendants, respectively.

They argued that the process that led to the appointment of the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland did not follow the procedures stipulated in section 4(1) of the chiefs (appointment, deposition, and establishment of traditional councils in Kogi state) law, 2006.

The judge agreed with the plaintiffs and ordered Ahmed-Anaje to vacate the throne pending a fresh selection by the kingmakers of the Ebiraland.

Moving an application to stay the execution of the judgment on Thursday, the Kogi state attorney-general, told the court that an appeal has been entered against the judgment.

He prayed the court to grant an order for a stay of execution in the judgment delivered in suit no. HCO/05C/2024, pending the determination of the appeal lodged to the appellate court.

“We also pray for any such orders or other orders as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of the application,’’ he pleaded.

Responding, Sani Abbas, who represented the claimants/respondents, did not object to the application.

In his ruling, Salisu granted the application.

“In view of the circumstance, the application is hereby granted. The order is that the status quo remains pending the determination of the appeal filed before the court of appeal,” the judge held.

“The defendants have argued that there are still live issues pending before this court and the appeal court in relation to Suit No. HCO/12C/2006.

“It is therefore logical that all issues connected to these cases, the instant case inclusive should be preserved until the outcome of the case is determined either by this court or the court of appeal.”