A Kano State High Court has adjourned proceedings in the case involving former governor, Abdullahi Ganduje, over the disputed ownership of a multi-billion-naira inland dry port project.
Ganduje, alongside three others, is facing a 10-count charge bordering on alleged criminal conspiracy, misappropriation of public funds, breach of trust, and conflict of interest.
The Kano State Government instituted the charges against the former governor; his aide, Abubakar Bawuro; his lawyer, Adamu Aliyu-Sanda; and a former Managing Director of the Nigerian Shippers’ Council, Hassan Bello.
Proceedings were stalled on Monday following a heated disagreement between defence and prosecution counsel over the legal authority empowering the state’s legal team to prosecute the case.
Lead defence counsel, A.S. Gadanya (SAN), challenged the validity of the fiat presented by the prosecution, arguing that the document did not authorise the current case but was issued for a separate matter. He urged the court to nullify all previous proceedings conducted by the prosecution on the grounds of improper authorisation.
In response, the state counsel, R.O. Zakariyya, maintained that the prosecution was duly empowered. He presented what he described as a valid fiat, asserting that it clearly listed members of the prosecution team and granted them authority to handle the matter.
Presiding judge, Justice Yusuf Ubale of High Court No. 2, sitting at the Audu Bako Secretariat in Kano, heard arguments from both sides but reserved ruling on the objection. The court fixed May 6 to determine the defence’s application.
According to the prosecution, Ganduje and the co-defendants allegedly conspired to transfer 80 percent of the shares of Dala Inland Dry Port — including the Kano State Government’s 20 percent stake — to a private firm identified as City Green Enterprise.
The state further alleged that over N4.49 billion belonging to Kano State was expended on infrastructure development at the port, including road construction, electricity installation, and perimeter fencing, purportedly for personal and family benefit.
Prosecutors contend that the defendants abused their official positions by diverting public resources for private gain, contrary to financial regulations and constitutional provisions.
The matter is expected to proceed after the court delivers its ruling on the preliminary objection in May.
Comments