Court delays ruling in Ganduje port case
Kano High Court Postpones Proceedings in Multi-Billion-Naira Port Case Involving Former Governor
KANO, Nigeria — Proceedings in the case against former Governor Abdullahi Ganduje concerning the ownership of a multi-billion-naira inland port project have been postponed by a Kano High Court.
Ganduje, alongside three co-defendants, faces 10 charges, including criminal conspiracy, misuse of public funds, breach of trust, and conflict of interest. The Kano State Government filed these charges against Ganduje, his aide Abubakar Bawuro, attorney Adamu Aliyu-Sanda, and former Managing Director of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, Hassan Bello.
The court session, held on Monday, encountered delays due to disagreements between the defense and prosecution teams. Lead defense attorney A.S. Gadanya (SAN) challenged the legal authority, known as a fiat, that allowed the state’s legal representatives to pursue the case. He contended that the documentation presented in court was related to a different matter and did not validate the current prosecution. Consequently, he requested the nullification of all prior proceedings.
In response, state attorney R.O. Zakariyya asserted that the prosecution team had appropriate legal authority. He introduced what he termed a valid fiat, which he claimed clearly identified the prosecution team and its mandate to handle the case.
Justice Yusuf Ubale of High Court No. 2, located at the Audu Bako Secretariat in Kano, heard arguments from both sides but did not issue an immediate ruling. The court has scheduled a decision on the defense’s legal challenge for May 6.
According to prosecutors, Ganduje and the other defendants allegedly collaborated to transfer 80 percent of the shares of Dala Inland Dry Port, which includes a 20 percent stake belonging to the state government, to a private entity identified as City Green Enterprise. They further claim that over N4.49 billion in state funds was misappropriated to finance infrastructure projects at the port for personal and family enrichment.
The defendants are also accused of exploiting their official positions to misuse public resources, in violation of established financial and constitutional regulations.
The case is set to continue following the court’s ruling in May.
