A High Court sitting in Kafanchan, Kaduna State, has granted an interim injunction restraining Governor Nasir El-Rufai and others from sacking over 4,000 traditional leaders across the state for several reasons including lack of finances to manage them.

The presiding judge, Justice S.S Daka, noted that the restraining order, which was signed by him and also signed by the Assistant Chief Registrar, Esther B. Yayit on June 20, 2017, was based on the presentation of Abdullahi Bello counsel to the applicants having perused the nine paragraph affidavit in support and five exhibits marked MK A. The matter was adjourned to June 29, 2017 for hearing the Motion on Notice.

The affected traditional leaders are those enthroned during the tenure of ex-governor Ahmed Makarfi which was done to douse tension, about 18 years ago.

The interim injunction also restrained the House of Assembly, Jaafaru Ibrahim Sani, Kaduna Ministry of local government affairs, Adara traditional council, Gbagyi traditional council and the Attorney General of Kaduna state, either by themselves or through their agents, servants and proxies from acting on the directives contained in the letter of the third defendants to the fifth and sixth defendants dated June 12, 2017 wherein the first, third and fourth defendants/respondents directed the fifth and sixth defendants, among others, to take steps to fill the offices of District and Village Heads within their domains pending the hearing and determination of Motion on Notice.

Similarly, an order of interim injunction is also granted restraining the defendants/respondents from doing anything which has the consequences of being prejudicial to the plaintiffs continued occupation of their offices, pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice.

Mr Stephen A. Gimba, Mr Gajere Dantawaye, Mr Ishaku Yari, Alhaji Gambo Yaro, are plaintiffs in the suit, with No. KDH/KAF/107/2017.

The plaintiffs also prayed for an order of interim injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from doing anything which has the consequences of being prejudicial to the plaintiffs continued occupation of their offices pending the hearing and determination of the Motion on Notice and such further and/or other orders as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance.