By Ladipo Gbolahan.
The recent legal battle surrounding the reinstatement of Emir Lamido Sanusi by the Kano State Governor, Abba Yusuf, highlights several important maxims of equity. These principles underscore the need for fairness and justice in the legal process and provide a framework for understanding the complexities of this case. The removal of Sanusi, widely believed to be politically motivated, and the subsequent legal maneuvers by the parties involved bring to the fore several key equitable doctrines.
- He Who Comes to Equity Must Come with Clean Hands
One of the foremost maxims of equity is that those who seek the intervention of a court must themselves be free of wrongdoing. This principle, “he who comes to equity must come with clean hands,” is particularly relevant in the context of Bayero’s ascension to the throne. Sanusi’s removal and Bayero’s appointment have been viewed by many as politically motivated actions rather than legitimate transitions of power. If Bayero’s claim to the throne is indeed tainted by political machinations, it would be inappropriate for him to now rely on the courts to defend his position. Equity demands honesty and fairness from those who seek its remedies, and any reliance on an illegitimate ascension undermines the integrity of Bayero’s claim.
The filing of an injunction in a court that lacks jurisdiction only serves to reinforce the perception of an abuse of the rule of law. This action can be viewed as an attempt to manipulate the legal system rather than a genuine pursuit of justice. Such behavior not only discredits the party involved but also undermines the credibility of the judicial process as a whole.
- Equity Aids the Vigilant
Equity favors those who are proactive in asserting their rights. The principle, “equity aids the vigilant,” applies to Bayero’s failure to take timely preventive measures to safeguard his claim to the throne. His inaction, especially in the face of potential challenges to his legitimacy, weakens his position. The court’s judgment, coming after Sanusi has already been reinstated and the law amended, is a case of too little, too late. Equity does not favor granting remedies to those who have slept on their rights, and Bayero’s delayed response is a clear example of such neglect.
The injunction to halt Sanusi’s reinstatement and the passage of the new law should have been sought much earlier in the process, ideally during the state assembly’s consideration of the bill. By waiting until after the law was signed and Sanusi reinstated, Bayero’s appeal to the court appears reactive and lacking in foresight.
- Equity Will Not Enjoin a Completed Act
Another fundamental principle is that equity will not enjoin a completed act. The maxim holds that injunctions are not granted to restrain actions that have already been carried out. In this case, the reinstatement of Sanusi and the passage of the new law have already been completed by the time the court issued its interim order. As such, the injunction is essentially moot, as the actions it seeks to prevent have already taken place. This renders the court’s order ineffective and highlights the importance of timely legal intervention.
- Equity Will Not Suffer a Wrong to Be Without a Remedy
Sanusi’s removal was widely perceived as unjustified and politically motivated, which calls for a remedy to address this wrong. The maxim “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” supports the view that the actions of the current governor, including the reinstatement of Sanusi and the amendment of the law, may be seen as corrective measures. These actions aim to rectify the perceived injustice of Sanusi’s removal and restore fairness and legitimacy to the process.
- Equity Follows the Law
It is essential to remember that equity follows the law. The Kano State Assembly’s passage of the new law and its subsequent assent by the governor make it the law of the state. This legislative action has formalized Sanusi’s reinstatement as the substantive Emir of Kano. Since equity does not contravene statutory law but rather complements it, the legal recognition of Sanusi’s position must be respected. The actions of the state government, being lawful, must be upheld, and any equitable considerations must align with this legal reality.
The application of these equitable maxims supports the reinstatement of Emir Lamido Sanusi and underscores the flaws in the actions taken by those opposing his reinstatement. Equity demands clean hands, vigilance, timely action, and adherence to the law, all of which bolster the legitimacy of Sanusi’s position as Emir of Kano.
