‘Dollar Video’: Kano Anti-Graft Agency Engages Falana To Prosecute Ganduje

Not backing down from ensuring it gets to the root of circumstances surrounding the alleged dollar video involving the immediate-past Governor of the State, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, the Kano Public Complaint and Anti-Corruption Commission (PCACC) has engaged the services of human rights lawyer, Chief Femi Falana (SAN) as its lead counsel in the much-publicized corruption case.

Counsel to the Kano anti-graft Commission, Barrister Usman Umar Fari, who disclosed the latest development to journalists in Kano on Friday, also said the case has been adjourned by the presiding judge, Justice A. M. Liman.

According to Fari; “Mr Femi Falana (SAN) has been engaged by the Anti-Graft agency to lead its counsel. The case was adjourned because the counsel to the Applicant informed the court that he was not ready. He wanted to respond to the processes served to him, hence it was adjourned to the 25 of July 2023 for hearing.”

Competent sources close to the PCACC hinted that Chief Falana flew into Kano on Thursday, July 20, 2023, to officially receive from the anti-corruption Commission a comprehensive brief on the case which is currently before a Federal High Court sitting in Kano.

Meanwhile, the former governor had, through his Counsel, Bar. B. Hemba, filed an ex parte motion before the court, seeking a restraining order on the Commission from arresting, investigating, and inviting him over the alleged dollar video.

The Court, presided over by Justice A.M Liman has restrained Nigeria Police and 7 others from harassing, arresting, inviting or detaining the immediate past Governor of Kano, his family or any appointee who served under his administration, pending the hearing and determination of substantive originating motion.

The order was in reaction to comments by the State anti-graft agency chairman Barrister Muhnyi Magai that former Governor Ganduje has been invited for questioning over an alleged video clip scam.

Also, the Court similarly restrained all the 8 defendants in the case from further action, saying the order “Restrains the Respondents whether by themselves or acting through their officers, men, operatives, agents, or any persons or group of persons howsoever described from harassing, intimidating, harassing, detaining the Applicant or his children or any member of his family or any appointee who served under the administration of the Applicant, pending the hearing and determination of the substantive originating motion.”

The Judge further stated thus; “An order restraining the Respondents whether by themselves or acting through their officers, men, operatives, agents, privies, or any persons or group of persons howsoever described from harassing, arresting, inviting or detaining Applicant or his children or any member of his family or any appointee who served under his administration or forcefully taking over properties of his children or any member of his family or any appointee who served under his administration, pending the hearing and determination of substantive originating motion”.