Fufore Emirate: Yola high court adjourns to July 14 for final ruling over jurisdictional issues
– Tensions rise as defense, plaintiff counsels clash over court’s legal competence
The legal battle surrounding the controversial creation of the Fufore Emirate took another turn today, June 16 2025, as the High Court in Yola presided over by Justice Musa Usman adjourned proceedings to July 14 to rule on the issue of jurisdiction following a heated exchange between the legal representatives of both parties.
The court had earlier convenes at 9:00 for the continuation of the suit but has to shift sitting to 12 noon over non appearance of the plaintiff counsels led by Afraimu Jingi, Adamawa state attorney general and commissioner of justice.
Related news
Fufore emirate: Yola high court adjourns sitting to April 3
Only Gangwari Ganye can stand as surety as court grants N5m bail to Calculate
The adjournment comes after the court entertained arguments on two motions for stay of proceedings filed by the defense counsel, stemming from their appeal at the Court of Appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the high court to entertain the suit.
In an interview with journalists after the court session, the plaintiff’s lead counsel, Manga Mohammed Nuruddeen, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), explained: “We adjourned this matter for hearing, but unfortunately, the defense filed two motions for a stay of proceedings because of their so-called appeal at the Court of Appeal.
“So, for that reason, the court had no choice but to first take arguments on the motion for stay. That’s what we did today, and the case has now been adjourned for ruling.”
He noted that the ruling will determine the direction of the case going forward. “It is after the ruling that we will know whether the matter will be suspended pending the outcome at the Court of Appeal, or whether the motions will be dismissed so we can proceed to call witnesses and present evidence,” he said.
But in an interview with newsmen, the attorney general and commissioner for Justice of Adamawa State, Afraimu K. Jingi, who also serves as defense counsel, expressed dissatisfaction with the way the court has handled their preliminary objection challenging its jurisdiction.
“We have always maintained that the court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction before proceeding further.
“In law, any proceedings carried out without jurisdiction are a nullity. We don’t want to waste the court’s time or our own time,”
According to him, the state government had hoped that the court would rule promptly on their objection before delving into the substantive suit.
“But instead, the court decided to defer the ruling and allow it to be taken alongside the main judgment after evidence has been taken. We opposed that and have since filed an appeal,” Jingi said.
He further explained that today’s proceedings were focused on the defense’s motion for a stay of proceedings, pending the outcome of their appeal.
“The plaintiffs wanted the case to proceed, but we insist that the jurisdictional issue must be addressed first,” he said.
Background to the Dispute
The ongoing legal tussle was triggered by the Adamawa State government’s decision to create the Fufore Emirate—an action that has sparked heated debate and divided opinions across the state.
The plaintiffs in the case, Musa Halilu Ahmed (Dujima Adamawa), Alh. Mustapha Dahiru Mustapha (Yeriman Adamawa), and Alh. Mustapha Ahmad (Sarkin Noma Adamawa) are prominent traditional stakeholders who have approached the court to nullify the creation of the new emirate.
They argue that the creation of Fufore Emirate undermines the cultural heritage, historical lineage, and territorial integrity of the existing Adamawa Emirate.
The state government, Governor Ahmadu Umaru Fintiri, Attorney General Hapsat Abdulrahman, and the newly installed Emir of Fufore, Muhammad Sani Ribadu, are listed as defendants in the suit.
In earlier proceedings, the plaintiff’s counsel, Nuruddeen (SAN), had sought time to respond to a cross-affidavit filed by the state government, citing the late filing of the defense’s brief of argument.
Despite procedural delays, both parties have remained firm in their legal positions, resulting in multiple applications, counter-applications, and now an appeal.
Commissioner Jingi previously argued that the suit should be struck out on the grounds of improper constitution and maintained that the matter was not ripe for reference to the Court of Appeal.
He also confirmed that their motion for leave to file a counter-affidavit out of time had been granted, intensifying the back-and-forth legal engagements.
