BY ALIYU YAQUB AHMED
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria enshrine the hallowed concept of Separation of Powers in the constitutional democracy and governance system of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Constitution assigns the three principal powers of government to three separate organs and personnel. The powers of law-making and oversight of executive operations are vested in the legislative houses of the federation and the states. The power of law enforcement, policy-making and public administration is vested in the executive arm of government. The judicial powers of interpretation of laws, enforcement of the Rule of Law and promotion of the fundamental rights of individuals is vested in the various courts and tribunals. The purpose of the concept of separation is to prevent tyranny and promote accountability in the governance system of the country.
One of the challenges facing the concept of Separation of Powers in Nigeria is the overwhelming influence that the executive arm wields over the judiciary. The state judiciaries, in particular, are weak and lack the necessary nerve and integrity to assert their independence. Rather, they undermine their independence by prioritizing personal gains through corruption and surrendering themselves to the manipulations and control of their state executives to protect their jobs or secure patronage.
The judiciary’s lack of independence has dire consequences. This is because the citizenry is left at the mercy of the often whimsical and oppressive state executives. No instance better illustrates the predicament of the citizenry under a conniving or conspiratorial judicial system than when he or she is picked up by any of the security or prosecutorial agencies in furtherance of a persecution agenda, often by a vindictive or malicious state governor. Instead of upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that laws and procedural rules are interpreted consistently and fairly, safeguarding the fundamental rights of citizens by subjecting executive actions against the individual to strict constitutional scrutiny or preventing abuse of power, the judiciary oftentimes becomes a willing ally and a treacherous tool for the oppression of the citizens. This unfortunate disposition of the judiciary has undermined public confidence in the judiciary to the extent that most of the actions and decisions of the courts are viewed with suspicion, even when they are consistent with the general principles of the law.
A case in point here is that of Honourable Muhammad Bashir Saidu, a former Commissioner for Finance and later Chief of Staff to the Governor of Kaduna State. There is suspicion doing the rounds that the incarnation of Honourable Muhammad Bashir Saidu and the difficulty in securing his bail since 31st December 2024 have to do with the controlling influence that Governor Sani Uba has over the judiciary in Kaduna State. It is rumoured that he has instructed the judiciary not to release him until he instructs them to do so. This may not be true – and that Honourable Muhammad Bashir Saidu is still in detention for more than three weeks needs to be reviewed.
Mohammad Bashir Saidu left office with his former boss, Mallam Nasir El Rufai in 2023 and went into private business. His stewardship and record under Mallam El Rufai were good until the incumbent Governor, Uba Sani started suspecting that Mallam El Rufai, who sponsored his gubernatorial candidacy and financed his electoral victory, was no longer a faithful member of the APC. Rumours abound that Uba Sani is acting a script from above. This rumour is strengthened and heightened by the curious coincidence of the ICPC and the Kaduna State Government pencilling nine of El Rufai’s loyalists for prosecution at the same time.
If what this writer knows is anything to go by, the collateral effect of having an El Rufai, who is among the people who took Arewa to Bourdillon Ikoyi to perform the introductory marriage through which the APC wooed and won the heart of the national bride at the expense of the PDP, as an injured foe, may be too telling on the fortunes of the APC in a 2027 election which may defy political measurements and demystify political structures. This slant is, however, an aside.
Saidu was invited by the ICPC sometime in November 2024. He was thoroughly interviewed and granted administrative bail. His passport, which was withheld as a condition for the administrative bail, was later released to him to enable him to meet up a prior medical appointment in Egypt. He was however arrested on 31/12/2024, that is, two days before his travel, by the Operation of Fushin Kada, and taken to a Chief Magistrate Court at the outskirts of Kaduna on a First Information Report bordering on allegations of criminal breach of trust and money laundering. Not having the jurisdiction to try Honourable Mohammad Bashir Saidu, the Chief Magistrate remanded him.
By a Motion dated 2/01/2025 with Motion Number KDH/KAD/04MB, the lawyers for Honourable Mohammad Bashir Saidu filed an application at the High Court of Kaduna State for his bail pending his arraignment and commencement of his trial. The Motion was assigned to Honourable Justice J. A. Ambi, sitting at Court 16 of the High Court of Kaduna State.
Whereas Section 33 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is clear on the fundamental right of the individual to his liberty and the circumstances under which he or she could be deprived his liberty, and Section 36 (5) preserves the right of the innocence of a person charged with a criminal offence until he is proved guilty, His Lordship struck out the bail application and refused to grant the Honourable bail on the ground that a charge against Honourable Mohammad Bashir Saidu was filed and assigned to Court 2 during the pendency of the bail application.
The decision of the Judge raises fundamental issues. The charge was filed on 4/1/2024 and the application for the bail was heard on 9/1/2025. The questions are: one, why did the Chief Judge not assign the substantive case to the same Judge he assigned the Motion to? Two, why did Honourable Justice J.A. Ambi hear the Motion on 9/1/2025, adjourned for ruling and returned with the decision to decline to determine the application on 16/1/2025? A court cannot be justified to be that tardy in a matter as serious as the personal liberty of a citizen who is charged with obviously bailable offences. As it is now, the Hon. Bashir Saidu is still languishing at the Kaduna Custodial Centre of the Nigerian Correctional Service.
The Honourable Justice may have been justified if he had declined to hear the application and asked the parties to proceed to the Judge handling the substantive matter. That can accord with the principle that once a case is assigned to a particular judge, that judge generally assumes responsibility for all applications related to the case, including bail applications. This ensures consistency and prevents conflicting rulings.
The case of Honourable Mohammad Bashir Saidu is an obvious special circumstance that would have justified the determination of his bail application by Honourable Justice Ambi. That he was forced to refile a fresh bail application in the same court tells the tale of a judicial system that is indifferent to and spiteful of the fundamental rights of the citizenry.
While awaiting the fresh bail to be heard, it is the prayer of the Honourable and his family that the judiciary will not find another excuse to deny him bail.
- Tinubu to ministers: Obtain presidential clearance for police escorts - December 10, 2025
- Jigawa: Between Gov Namadi and Persons with Disabilities - December 10, 2025
- Death came for the king’s seven sons, by FUNKE EGBEMODE - December 10, 2025
