Even as he denied knowledge of alleged misappropriation of N3.4 billion under his watch by Kano Emirate Council, it is not yet Uhuru for Emir of Kano, His Highness, Muhammad Sanusi 11 as the chairman of Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission, Bar. Muhuyi Magaji Rimingado declared on Monday that the Commission has enough facts to continue investigation into the matter.
It could be recalled that last week, the Commission in its Interim Report forwarded to Kano state Government recommended for the suspension of Emir of Kano and other parties implicated in the scandal to allow for proper investigation.
The chairman of the Commission also dashed the hopes of many that the ongoing reconciliation between Emir Sanusi and Governor Abdullahi Umar Ganduje may for the Commission to drop the case, as he insisted that the anti-graft Commission remains an independent body by law and cannot be directed by anybody or any authority on what to do.
Briefing journalists in his office, Muhuyi stated that, “the general public may recall that the Commission is in receipt of a complaint filed by Concern Friends of Kano Emirate dated 28th March, 2017 on allegation of financial misappropriation by Kano Emirate Council under Emir Muhammad Sanusi 11.
“The petitioners raised some allegations bordering on spending funds belonging to Emirate Council without appropriation and regards to due process.
“During that period, the Commission used its powers of being independent under Section 8, 9 and 15 of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission Law 2008 (as amended) and launched investigation which culminated into the issuance of preliminary investigation report forwarded to the Government on the 31stof May, 2019, suggesting among other things, the suspension of all persons fingered in the report to enable the Commission continue with its investigation without any interference.
“The preliminary report is just the tip of the iceberg of the Commission’s findings as the investigation is ongoing.”
He further stated that, “the three fundamental issues raised in the preliminary report is obstruction of investigation which necessitated the report so that the Government can implore administrative means to enable the Commission exercise its statutory powers with respect to the case.
“This is in line with the provisions of Section 18 (4) of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission Law 2008 (as amended) which provides as follows:
“In every case where the Commission is of the opinion that the conduct of any person is such that disciplinary action against him be taken, it shall make a report in that regard to the appropriate authority which shall take such further action as may be necessary in the circumstance.”
He said he was aware of waters that have passed under the bridge after the issuance of a query to Emir Muhammad Sanusi 11 by Kano state Government based on the preliminary report from the anti-graft commission, insisting that the Commission was not induced by Kano state Government to investigate Emir Muhammad Sanusi 11.
According to him, “this investigation was not commenced at the instance of the Government of Kano state, but as a result of a series of complaints by citizens of the state.
“By virtue of Section 8 of the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Law 2008 (as amended) which provides that, ‘in exercising its powers under this law, the Commission shall not be subjected to the direction and control of any authority,’ the Commission is not under the control or direction of any authority or person.
“Our preliminary report is only for the Government to act administratively so that the Commission can continue to exercise its responsibilities without any interference and nothing more.
“As far as the Commission is concern, this investigation is ongoing and the Commission will do everything legally possible to deliver its mandate with respect to the case.”
