Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has lodged a petition against Justice Rilwan M. Aikawa, the judge overseeing his case against the Kaduna State House of Assembly at the Federal High Court in Kaduna. El-Rufai’s counsel, Abdulhakeem Mustapha (SAN), filed the petition in Abuja, alleging bias, injustice, and denial of fair hearing.
El-Rufai had filed a fundamental rights case in June 2024, contesting the Assembly’s report accusing him and some officials of misappropriating N423 billion, claiming he was denied a fair hearing.
He requested the court to nullify the Assembly’s report.
El-Rufai’s petition to the Chief Judge of the Abuja Federal High Court seeks to have the case reassigned to another judge.
The petition states, “The Applicant herein filed this captioned suit to enforce his Fundamental Human Rights to fair hearing against the Respondents on the 26th day of June, 2024 at the Federal High Court, Kaduna Division. Upon filing the same, the matter was assigned to Honourable Justice R.M. Aikawa, who fixed the same for hearing on the 8th day of July, 2024.”
The petition noted events on July 8, when all counsel agreed to adjourn the matter to July 17.
However, El-Rufai’s legal team, arriving in Kaduna on July 16, discovered the court would not sit on July 17 and subsequently returned to Lagos.
The team learned on July 17 that the matter was rescheduled for July 18, prompting them to request an adjournment, which was filed and served on all parties.
Despite this, the court proceeded with the hearing on July 18 without the Applicant’s counsel present.
El-Rufai’s petition argues, “The action of the Presiding Judge to hear the matter without the attendance and appearance of the Applicant smacks of extreme bias, injustice, and denial of fair hearing against the Applicant for a lot of reasons.”
The petition claims the Applicant was not properly notified of the July 18 hearing, and the court’s decision to proceed violated procedural fairness.
It adds, “Service of hearing notice in a matter is sacrosanct and our courts have held severally that every party must be put on notice before his case can be heard, and this was done without putting the Applicant’s counsel on notice.”
The petition further notes that the Applicant was not given the chance to respond to the 1st Respondent’s counter-affidavit and written address, arguing that the court’s actions effectively shut out the Applicant from responding to the processes.
