Forty-eight hours after Kano State anti-graft agency dramatically suspended investigations of the Emirate Council/Emir Muhammad Sanusi II over financial impropriety, a Kano-based lawyer, Barrister Usman Umar Fari, has faulted the decision of the state House of Assembly in constituting a parallel panel to probe the same issue.
Despite relying on Section 16 of the Kano State Anti-Corruption Law 2008 as amended, Fari said the state’s anti-graft agency ought not to have promptly suspended investigations.
Citing the law, Fari argued that where there is a case, the Commission shall not investigate any matter that is pending before the State House of Assembly or Executive Council of the state; or which is pending before any court of law.
However, with respect to the probe of Emir Sanusi, he noted that at the time the state anti-graft agency commenced probing Emir Sanusi, that particular issue was not before the Kano State House of Assembly.
He said the issue was not before the Kano State Assembly, adding that it was after the state anti-graft agency had reached an advanced stage in the investigation that the Kano State House of Assembly announced that it will commence its investigation.
“So, to my own understanding, the state anti-graft law can only halt an investigation when the matter was already before the Kano State House of Assembly, but not when the investigation was initiated by the state’s anti-graft law and it was subsequently that the Kano State Assembly announced its intention to commence investigations into the subject matter.
”My advice, for now, is that since they have already made up their mind to suspend investigations, that is alright, at least their decision to stop is a demonstration of their willingness to comply with due process.”
Source: The Punch