COURT ADJOURNS TRIAL OF GANDUJE, WIFE, SON TO APRIL 15

Read Time:1 Minute, 52 Second

A Kano state high court has postponed the trial of Abdullahi Ganduje, the former governor, and seven other defendants, accused of misappropriating public funds, until April 15.

Ganduje, along with his wife, Hafsat Umar, and son, Abdullahi Umar, face 11 charges including bribery, conspiracy, misappropriation, and embezzlement of public funds worth billions of naira.

The other defendants are Abubakar Bawuro, Jibrilla Muhammad, Lamash Properties Ltd, Safari Textiles Ltd, and Lasage General Enterprises Ltd.

At the resumed proceedings, the prosecution informed the court it was prepared to proceed and referred to a motion dated November 24, 2025, requesting permission to submit additional evidence against the defendants.

However, several defense lawyers informed the court about pending applications that need to be resolved before the trial can proceed. Lydia Oluwakemi-Oyewo, the defense counsel, stated that the defense had submitted a motion on July 17, 2025, requesting a stay of the proceedings.

Adekunle Taiye-Falola, representing the third and seventh defendants, also referred the court to a motion dated May 23, 2025.

READ MORE…

MORROCO APPEALS AFCON 2025 SANCTION, FINES FROM CAF

Muhammad Shehu, counsel to the fifth defendant, said an affidavit had been filed to notify the court of an application for stay of proceedings before the court of appeal.

Abubakar Ahmad, counsel to the sixth defendant, told the court he had filed a notice of preliminary objection and an application for extension of time to respond on points of law dated February 2, and asked that a hearing date be fixed.

Faruk Asekome, counsel to the eighth defendant, said he was ready to proceed.

Following submissions from both sides, Amina Adamu-Aliyu, the presiding judge, adjourned the case until April 15 for hearing of all pending applications and preliminary objections.

The matter has been repeatedly delayed by legal challenges. Earlier rulings by the Kano state high court upheld its jurisdiction to hear the case after it dismissed preliminary objections from the defence as “incompetent“.