Court orders Ohinoyi of Ebiraland to vacate throne

A Kogi state high court in Lokoja has ordered Tijani Ahmed-Anaje, the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland, to vacate the throne.

Umar Salisu, the trial judge, on Monday, 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.

In December 2024, Daudu Adeku-Ojiah, Hussain Yusuf, and Abdulrahaam Suberu challenged the appointment of Ahmed-Anaje by the former governor.

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

According to NAN, the plaintiffs 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 plaintiffs prayed that the court should restrain the first and second defendants from recognising Ahmed-Anaje as the Ohinoyi of Ebiraland.

“A declaration that the purported Ohis (traditional rulers) who participated in the selection, recommendation, and process leading to the purported appointment of the 3rd Defendant as Ohinoyi of Ebiraland are non-existent, null, and void,” one of the prayers reads.

In his judgment, Salisu ordered Ahmed-Anaje to vacate the throne pending a fresh selection by the kingmakers of the Ebiraland.

‘ODODO ORDERS APPEAL OF COURT JUDGMENT’

Reacting to the judgment, Abdullahi, the state attorney-general, told NAN that Ododo has ordered that the court verdict should be appealed.

“We are confident that there will be a reversal of the judgment. The citizens should exercise restraint not to do anything contrary to the law,” he said.

“We don’t agree with the judgment because the judge didn’t consider some objections we raised before him.

“Tomorrow, by God’s grace, we are filing notice and grounds of appeal challenging the judgment of the court.”