It was a mild drama at Samaru Upper Shariah Court Gusau when the presiding judge of Tudun Wada High Shariah Court Judge Hashimu Mohammed petitioned nine residents of Samaru for illegally conspiring to trespass a plot of land allegedly owned by him.
When the matter came up for mentioning, the prosecutor Aliyu Alkali Umar on behalf of the State Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice submitted that, the embattled plot of land with certificate number Gus/G/3608 belongs to Justice Hashimu Mohammed the serving judge of Tudun wada High Shariah Court and that the nine accused persons were arraigned for allegedly taking over the ownership of the plot and even erected some structures.
He said the two count charges instituted against the accused persons illegal trespass and criminal conspiracy were brought pursuant to the provision of sections 123 and 185 of the State Shariah Penal Code.
Though the accused persons denied the charges instituted against them, the sought for a court leave to allow Barrister Sadiq Wakkala appear for them in the case.
In his argument, the defense counsel Barrister Sadiq Wakkala submitted that, the petitioner lacks all the powers to approach the court on the simple fact that, the embattled plot did not belong to him rather it was allocated by the state government for the sole purpose of constructing an Islamiyya School and five daily prayer mosque in Samaru area.
He further submitted that, the accused persons are in possession of all the documents from the state ministry of land validating the purpose for allocating the plot since 1996.
Wakkala described as unfortunate how the residents of Samaru area got a wind of the information that the judge sold the plot to one Abubakar Tanko a staff of the Central Bank at the cost of 18 million naira and even wrote to the state ministry of land for the change of ownership and re-issuance of certificate of occupancy.
The defense counsel further maintained that, even if the plot belongs to him, he has no right on the point of law to sue the accused persons in court because he sold the ownership to another person and it is only Abubakar Tanko that has the right to approach the court on what ever happened to the land he purchased.
In his counter argument the prosecutor Aliyu Alkali Umar did not opposed the submission of the counsel to the accused and instead confirmed to the court that complainer has informed him that he has sold the plot of land to the same Abubakar Tanko.
In his judgment, the Shariah Court Judge Mohd Shinkafi dismissed the petition saying the prosecution has failed to probe the defense wrong on the ownership position of the land and hence the embattled Judge confirmed that he has sold the land, he cannot sue anybody who tempered with it.