Mandate Vs. Loyalty: Evaluating the Legal Grounds for Removal in Kano State
By Mohammed Babagana Abubakar
Email: aunodigitalabuba@gmail.com
March 14, 2026
The ongoing political drama in Kano State has reached a fever pitch. With Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s strategic move to the All Progressives Congress (APC) and Deputy Governor Comr. Aminu Abdussalam Gwarzo’s decision to remain with the NNPP, the state finds itself in a constitutional quagmire. As Gwarzo’s seat sat empty at the March 12 Executive Council meeting, the question shifted from politics to legality. Does a conflict of loyalty provide legal grounds for the removal of a mandate?
The primary tool for the removal of a Deputy Governor is Section 188 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended). The law allows the House of Assembly to impeach based on Gross Misconduct.
While the Constitution does not list every specific act that qualifies, Section 188(11) provides a broad definition.
Gross misconduct means a grave violation or breach of the provisions of this Constitution or a misconduct of such nature as amounts in the opinion of the House of Assembly to gross misconduct.
In the case of Kano, the House has already initiated proceedings, citing not just political disagreement, but specific allegations of financial impropriety (allegedly totaling ₦1.6 billion) and abuse of office during Gwarzo’s tenure as Commissioner for Local Government.
One of the strongest legal arguments for removal in this context is the Dereliction of Duty. A Deputy Governor is elected to assist the Governor.
The Mandate, the Supreme Court of Nigeria has historically held that the Governor and Deputy Governor run on a single, inseparable ticket.
The Conflict, when a Deputy Governor boycotts State Executive Council (SEC) meetings, he is effectively withdrawing his assistance. In legal terms, if the Deputy Governor becomes a clog in the wheel of the administration, the House of Assembly can argue that he is no longer performing the functions of his office as required by the Constitution.
The Deputy Governor’s allies argue that he holds a mandate from the people and cannot be removed simply for refusing to defect. Legally, they are partially correct defection alone is not an automatic ground for losing an executive seat (unlike in the legislature).
However, the legal ground for removal shifts when political loyalty results in Administrative Stagnation.
Unauthorized Absence, frequent absence from the SEC, where critical state laws are debated, can be framed as a grave violation of the oath of office.
Cabinet Obstruction, by holding the position of Commissioner for Higher Education while refusing to cooperate with the head of the cabinet, Gwarzo creates a functional vacuum. The law does not permit an official to hold a position they refuse to service.
As of March 2026, the Kano State House of Assembly has already served the formal notice of impeachment. Under the constitutional timeline, the Deputy Governor has 14 days to respond to the allegations
The Case for Impeachment in Kano is built on the premise that the state’s progress is more important than an individual’s political survival. If the investigation panel finds that Gwarzo’s absence and alleged financial malfeasance have hindered the government’s ability to serve the public, the Mandate he carries will no longer be protected by the Loyalty he holds for his party.
In the eyes of the law, the mandate belongs to the people, and any official who fails to execute it for whatever reason risks the constitutional nuclear option.
