By Kabir Yusuf
Anti-corruption advocates have condemned a ruling by a judge of the Kano State High Court in Bichi, Justice Musa Ahmad, accusing him of shielding a senior state government official from investigation in a multi-billion-naira scandal.
On 18 August, the judge restrained the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) from investigating Abdullahi Rogo, Director-General of Protocol to Kano State Governor Abba Yusuf.
Apart from running counter to judicial precedents, Justice Ahmad’s ruling potentially undermines an earlier decision of the Federal High Court in Kano ordering the forfeiture of some of the proceeds of the alleged corrupt activities.
Mr Rogo is accused of diverting public funds and receiving laundered cash. He approached the court alleging harassment, intimidation, and “double jeopardy” by the anti-graft agencies. In his suit, he sought N20 million in damages, N2 million in legal fees, and 10 per cent annual interest on any judgment sum.
The ICPC and EFCC argued that double jeopardy applies only to prosecution and trial, not to investigations. They maintained that Mr Rogo had merely been invited to explain his role in the alleged diversion and laundering of state funds.
While acknowledging that Mr Rogo’s rights had not yet been violated, Mr Ahmad held that there was a likelihood of breach, given the overlapping invitations and threats of arrest. The judge declared ICPC’s invitation unlawful, restrained further investigations against Mr Rogo, and awarded him N2 million in costs against the anti-graft agencies.
Activists kick
The judgment has triggered criticism from rights and anti-corruption groups, who described it as judicial sabotage of Nigeria’s anti-corruption fight.
The chairperson of the Human and Environmental Development Agenda (HEDA), Olanrewaju Suraj, said the ruling amounted to “deliberate ignorance or sabotage” of the anti-corruption fight.
He faulted the judge’s reliance on overlapping invitations by the agencies, arguing that “a single crime can attract multiple charges under different mandates.”
“For instance, ICPC cannot prosecute money laundering, but EFCC can. The Code of Conduct Bureau can also prosecute for false asset declaration,” Mr Suraj explained.
“It is wrong to stop agencies from discharging their statutory duties. It will be for the suspect to raise abuse of the court process if prosecuted for the same offence by multiple agencies.”
He accused public officials of exploiting court orders to evade scrutiny, citing cases of former Aviation Minister Stella Oduah and ex-Kogi Governor Yahaya Bello, who at various times explored administrative and judicial processes to stop their trials.
Mr Suraj urged the National Judicial Council (NJC) to sanction judges who undermine anti-corruption efforts.
‘Judicial recklessness’
On his part, the Executive Director of the Civil Society Legislative Advocacy Centre (CISLAC), Auwal Rafsanjani, echoed similar concerns.
He said the ruling contradicts established Supreme Court judgments affirming the powers of anti-graft agencies to investigate public officials. He described the order as “judicial recklessness” that undermines the rule of law and ridicules the judiciary.
On the judge’s reliance on overlapping invitations by the agencies, Mr Rafsanjani said, “It is an abuse of judicial privilege for any judge to stop a constitutionally established agency from performing its duties.”
“This is the kind of judicial corruption, immorality, and ethical misconduct we continue to see in Nigeria. In the past, some judges even issued perpetual injunctions shielding governors and other officials from corruption investigations. Such rulings only aid and protect corrupt individuals.”
“No public official should fear investigation if they are transparent,” Mr Rafsanjani said, adding, “The real danger is a judiciary being used to obstruct accountability.”
Both Messrs Suraj and Rafsajani urged civil society and the media to hold judges accountable and protect the integrity of Nigeria’s anti-corruption campaign.
Background on the judge
Mr Ahmad, who gave the controversial ruling, is a judge in the Bichi Judicial Division of the Kano State High Court.
Less than one and a half years on the bench, Mr Ahmad was inaugurated by the Kano State Governor in March 2024. His inauguration followed his appointment by the National Judicial Council in December 2023.
He is currently presiding over a lawsuit filed by palace officials against Emir Muhammadu Sanusi II regarding alleged illegal eviction and demolition of residences within the palace.
The ICPC has vowed to appeal the ruling, describing it as an attempt to shield a powerful official from accountability.
Counter to judicial precedents
Mr Ahmed’s decision deviates from judicial precedents and established principles of the appellate courts.
For instance, in Hassan & Ors v. EFCC (2014), the Court of Appeal held that no court can stop the investigative powers of the Nigerian police, the EFCC or any agency established under our laws to investigate crimes where there is reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime by a suspect.
Similarly, the Supreme Court in Gani Fawehinmi v. Inspector-General of Police (2002) ruled that even constitutional immunity from prosecution enjoyed by the Nigerian president, vice-presidents, governors and deputy governors does not prevent investigations.
Also in IGP & Anor v. Ubah & Ors (2014), the Supreme Court unequivocally affirmed that restraining orders blocking investigations are unconstitutional. “It interferes with powers given by the Constitution to Police Officers to investigate and prosecute crimes…” and reaffirmed that “no court has the power to stop the police from investigating a crime … whether to or how it is done is a matter within the discretion of the police.”
The judicial precedents have shaped NJC’s disciplinary decisions over time.
In 2021, a Federal High Court judge in Zamfara State granted an injunction shielding state officials from EFCC scrutiny. The Court of Appeal later overturned the ruling, affirming the EFCC’s powers to investigate state finances.
The NJC subsequently suspended the judge, Aminu Baffa Aliyu, for misconduct. It also placed Mr Aliyu on the watch-list for three years, during which period he was barred from elevation.
“Hon. Justice Baffa was found liable for an act of judicial misconduct in Suit No. FHC/GS/CS/30/2021, the Government of Zamfara State vs EFCC, wherein His Lordship granted an order restraining security agencies from carrying out their statutory duties, and disregarded the doctrine of stare decisis in adjudication of the case,” the NJC said at the time.
Also Ebiowei Tobi of the Appeal Court, in setting aside the Zamfara ruling, criticised politicians’ growing practice of seeking injunctions against EFCC invitations, describing it as “irresponsible” and contrary to the role of the judiciary.
Mr Ahmad’s ruling in Kano has now raised similar questions about judicial complicity in shielding politicians from accountability, anti-corruption advocates said.
Mr Suraj and Mr Rafsanjani insist the ruling should not stand. They called on citizens, civil society, the media and lawmakers to resist attempts to weaken anti-corruption agencies.
“The judiciary must not be used as a refuge for public officials running from accountability,” Mr Rafsanjani warned.
N1.3bn recovered during probe against top official Rogo
PREMIUM TIMES reported details of the staggering N6.5 billion corruption scandal now under investigation by the EFCC and the ICPC, Nigeria’s two foremost anti-graft agencies.
Investigators allege that Mr Rogo masterminded the diversion and laundering of billions of naira belonging to the Kano State Government, funnelling the funds through suspicious companies, bureau de change operators, and personal accounts.
Although probes are still ongoing, the ICPC has already recovered N1.3 billion linked to Mr Rogo, including funds laundered through corporate fronts and his private accounts.
On 2 July, the Federal High Court in Kano issued a final forfeiture order, granting the Federal Government control of a portion of the suspected loot traced to the governor’s aide.
The case broke in April when the ICPC approached the court by ex parte motion, seeking forfeiture of N142 million “reasonably suspected to have been acquired illegally.”
On 7 May, the judge granted interim forfeiture of the funds and directed that a notice be published in a national newspaper, inviting anyone with interest to show cause within a month why the money should not be permanently forfeited.
No claimant emerged. By 2 July, the court ordered a final forfeiture of the N142 million, ruling that it represented proceeds of corruption connected to Mr Rogo.
READ ALSO: Finnish court sends Simon Ekpa to six years in jail for terrorism crimes
But investigators insist that the forfeited sum is only a fraction of the illicit transactions traced to the top Kano government official.
PREMIUM TIMES follow-up reporting revealed how some bureau de change operators have implicated Mr Rogo in the multi-billion-naira corruption scandal.
The operators, in detailed statements given to EFCC and ICPC, described how they moved huge sums of public funds at Mr Rogo’s request, transactions investigators say form the backbone of a suspected N6.5 billion fraud and money laundering scheme.
This article, written by Kabir Yusuf, was originally published by Premium Times on 31 August 2025.
This ruling raises serious doubts about judicial integrity and risks weakening the fight against corruption in Nigeria.