Adara Chieftains Drag El-Rufai to Court over scraping of Adara Chiefdom

/* custom css */
.tdi_59.td-a-rec{ text-align: center; }.tdi_59 .td-element-style{ z-index: -1; }.tdi_59.td-a-rec-img{ text-align: left; }.tdi_59.td-a-rec-img img{ margin: 0 auto 0 0; }@media (max-width: 767px) { .tdi_59.td-a-rec-img { text-align: center; } }

Advertisement

Three leaders of Adara land, the majority ethnic group in Kajuru and Kachia Local Government Areas (LGAs) in Southern Kaduna, yesterday appeared in a Kaduna High Court to challenge the 2018 scraping of Adara Chiefdom by Kaduna state Governor, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai.

It could be recalled that in a development that surprised the state and angered the Adara people, Governor Nasir el-Rufai ordered the scrapping of Adara Chiefdom, the second biggest traditional council outside Zazzau Emirate. It happened less than a month after the traditional ruler of Adara nation, Agom Adara III Maiwada Galadima was abducted, taken hostage in the bush and later killed. The Adara Development Association (ADA) kicked against the abolition of their chiefdom and alleged that the policy may have a link with the murder of their monarch.

The three title holders sued on behalf of the entire Adara people home and abroad, and joined the Commissioner of Justice and Attorney General of Kaduna state and Kaduna State Ministry of Local Government And Chieftaincy Affairs.

/* custom css */
.tdi_58.td-a-rec{ text-align: center; }.tdi_58 .td-element-style{ z-index: -1; }.tdi_58.td-a-rec-img{ text-align: left; }.tdi_58.td-a-rec-img img{ margin: 0 auto 0 0; }@media (max-width: 767px) { .tdi_58.td-a-rec-img { text-align: center; } }

Advertisement

The case referenced as: KAH/KAD/72/2021 was filed in January 2021 by Bar. J A Achimugu (SAN) on behalf of the plaintive, Mr. Sani Maza Waje (Madakin Adara), Mr. Audi Dalhatu (Talban Agom Adara) and Mr Awemi Dio Maisamari (National President of Adara Development Association.)

The plaintive are seeking among others, “the restoration of Adara Chiefdom and the Adara Traditional Council which was abrogated by governor Nasir el-Rufai by an Executive Order gazetted on the 29th May, 2018 which was released in November 2018 just after the abduction, killing and burial of the Chief of Adara Chiefdom, His Royal Highness Agom Adara III Maiwada Rapheal Galdima.”

The plaintive are also challenging as “null and void the creation of Kachia Chiefdom and Kajuru Emirate from Adara Chiefdom as both were strange, unwanted by the Adara people as it does not reflect their identity, tradition and Faith.”

Furthermore, the Plaintive refer to as “disturbing, insulting and unfair that 40 Adara communities that are 98% non-Muslims would be forced under a hurriedly created Kajuru Emirate of which Hausa/Fulani Muslims occupy one village.”

According to them, the law that established the Adara Chiefdom does not give governor Nasir el-Rufai the leverage to use his executive powers and abrogate the Chiefdom without going through the legislative process.

The case which came up for hearing yesterday at the Kaduna State High Court 13, Presided by Justice Bilkisu Mohammed was however adjourned for 29th September, 2021 as Counsel to three defendants, S.B Mohammed, file and objection on behalf of the Defendants, Challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the case.

Speaking after the adjournment to the press, the lawyer to the plaintiff explained what transpired in court .

Achimugu (SAN) said: “The matter was delayed to today for mention so that a date can be given to us for hearing. But the Defendants came up with a motion to release the preliminary objection they filed earlier in January. The preliminary objection is that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear this matter,” he said.

“We are not opposed to them being heard. Because of that the matter had been adjourned. We are also asking that we be allowed to apply our response to their preliminary objection. So the preliminary objection is set for hearing on both sides,” he said.

“That’s why the case was adjourned to the 29th of September so that both sides can be heard and then the court would now decide whether it has jurisdiction or not.”

/* custom css */
.tdi_60.td-a-rec{ text-align: center; }.tdi_60 .td-element-style{ z-index: -1; }.tdi_60.td-a-rec-img{ text-align: left; }.tdi_60.td-a-rec-img img{ margin: 0 auto 0 0; }@media (max-width: 767px) { .tdi_60.td-a-rec-img { text-align: center; } }