A Federal High Court judge in Kano, Justice Simon Amobeda, has accused the Chairman of the Kano Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission, Muhuyi Magaji Rimin-Gado, of attempting to interfere with justice in a case under his jurisdiction.
Justice Amobeda made the accusation during an open court session on Friday.
READ ALSO: Court orders Kano Judges to resign as Inquiry Chairs in 48 Hours
Amobeda revealed that Rimin-Gado had filed five petitions against him with the National Judicial Council (NJC), claiming that the judge had passed a judgment against the interests of the anti-graft body and had delayed the ruling for seven months. However, Amobeda insisted that his decisions were based solely on the facts presented and not influenced by any external interests.
“I am not a state high court judge; I am a Federal High Court judge. God has brought me here, and I refuse to be intimidated or cowed,” Amobeda declared. He expressed frustration that he had been forced to respond to petitions regarding judgments that had already been decided by five other judges.
The judge went on to accuse Rimin-Gado of repeatedly disobeying court orders, questioning the legality of some of the anti-corruption commission’s actions. “Your law does not envisage that you arrest somebody, detain, and grant him bail. You have disobeyed court orders several times. Because we are keeping quiet, you think you can continue to disgrace the system,” Amobeda said.
He also highlighted how he had resisted numerous attempts to influence his rulings, including a landmark judgment on the relocation of Sabon Gari drug market. Despite the pressures, Amobeda vowed to continue dispensing justice without fear or favor. “By the grace of God, I am paid to do this work, and I will do it very well, without fear or favor or ill will. All of us are answerable to God Almighty.”
Efforts to reach Muhuyi Magaji Rimin-Gado for comment were unsuccessful. However, a lawyer at the anti-graft agency, who spoke anonymously, stated that they could not comment on the matter as it is currently before the NJC.
“We will not comment on this matter because it is before the National Judicial Council, and it is only they or their assigned agent who can talk on it,” the lawyer said.
