A Federal High Court in Kano, on Monday, barred the police from arresting or detaining House of Representatives Majority Leader, Alhassan Ado Doguwa accused of allegedly killing people during the February 25 election.

Justice Mohammad Yunusa, the Court’s Presiding Judge, also proclaimed jurisdiction to hear and issue the N500 million bail on ex parte application on the beleaguered majority leader Mr Doguwa.

In ruling on Mr Doguwa’s application on notice filed against the lower court for violation of his fundamental rights and unlawful imprisonment, Justice Yunusa concluded that the Chief Magistrate Court lacked the authority to hear any case bordering on criminal conspiracy.

Justice Yunusa also referenced section 251 (1), which provided the Federal court sole jurisdiction to consider matters involving guns, such as the allegations filed against Mr Doguwa. Although the judge stressed that giving Mr Doguwa bail was not designed to keep him from facing trial, Justice Yunusa insisted on the due procedure.

Mr Doguwa, via his counsel, Nureini Jimoh, SAN, sought the enforcement of his client’s basic rights as provided by the constitution and other valid charters in affidavits presented to the court.

The senior counsel stated that Mr Doguwa was unjustly arrested by police, violating his right to liberty and freedom as guaranteed by many clauses of the 1999 constitution as amended. According to the affidavits, the applicant’s counsel maintained that the Chief Magistrate’s detention of his client was null and void and unconstitutional since subordinate courts lack the authority to try criminal matters.

Dissatisfied with the court’s ruling releasing Mr Doguwa, prosecution attorney AB Saleh questioned the Federal High Court’s power to enforce the orders, claiming Justice Yunusa’s actions constituted serious abuse of the court process.

The prosecution claimed in its 26-paragraph counter-affidavits that police have a statutory responsibility to investigate any relevant case of criminal conspiracy for any amount of time, adding that such activity does not constitute a violation of the citizen’s basic right.

In his decision, Justice Yunusa stated that individuals have the right, under the provisions of Section 46 (1) of the 1999 Constitution as amended, to approach any high court to dispute an infringement or violation of their basic rights.

Although Justice Yunusa acknowledged the portions of the statute that clearly designate the state high court as a venue for challenging violations of basic rights.

He did, however, explain that both the state and federal high courts had concurrent competence to hear basic rights cases.

He noted that Mr Doguwa should not have been remanded in the correctional institution in the first place since he had not been arraigned and properly charged and that the police position on holding charge before the lower court was not accepted by the law.

As a result, the court approved the applicant’s application, preventing the police from arresting, harassing, detaining, or otherwise taking further action against Mr Doguwa.