Chieftaincy Tussle: Court Sacks Taraba Monarch

0
0

By; DEKERA NICHOLAS, Kaduna


An Upper Area 2 customary court sitting in Jalingo, Taraba State capital, has sacked the acting Mbonduah of Kabri chiefdom, Alhaji Auwal Hamma-Julde Zubairu.
 Zubairu, who was appointed by Gov Darius Ishaku of Taraba in an acting capacity following the death of Mbonnduah, was a defendant in the suit.
The court affirmed that the custom and traditions of the people should determine who occupies the throne.
Reacting to the judgement, Counsel to the defendant, Ahmed Umar Esq. stated that the ruling would be appealed in a higher court.
According to him, “we have taken it the way it is, but this is just the first stage of the battle. 
“We will approach the high court to Appeal this judgement because the court said it has set aside the instrument creating this chiefdom.
“We know the late Mbonduah who served for 60 days was appointed by the state, and now they are saying by tradition it is the son that would inherit the throne.
“The fact remains that this Chiefdom was created in 2018 by law which allows for rotation of who occupies the throne.”
Counsel to the complainant, Daniel Ovienta was satisfied with the ruling of the court.
According to him, “this matter started in 2020, and we are glad the judgement was delivered today.
“As you heard from the judgement, there was a purported Kabri Chiefdom order which created a rotational system for the Chieftaincy of Kabri.
“But going through that document, it was not signed by the state governor. And section 100 subsection 1-4 of the constitution stated that before a bill can become a law, it must be signed by the state governor.
“ If he does not assent the bill within 40 days after its passage, the bill must be passed again by a two-thirds majority of the house of assembly and signed by the Speaker.
“In that document, the signature of the Speaker and the Governor was not there, and that was why the court declared that the document commands no legal value.
“Besides, the document was not even tendered by any of the witnesses for the defendant. 
“It was the defence counsel that gave a copy of the document to the court after the adoption of addresses.” he said.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here