By Barr. Badamasi Suleiman Gandu
The media has been awash with reports concerning Suleiman Danwawu, an alleged notorious drug dealer who was declared wanted by various security agencies.
He was apprehended in early 2025 by the police and subsequently handed over to the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA).
The arrest garnered significant attention from the public and civil society organizations, with reports widely circulated in national dailies and other media outlets.
During Danwawu’s detention by both the Police and the NDLEA, considerable tension arose regarding his potential release versus continued detention for discreet investigation and eventual prosecution.
This tension was fueled by the devastating impact of drug abuse in Kano, which has been linked to thuggery, armed robbery (phone snatching), and other heinous crimes.
The alarming rate at which youths are succumbing to drug influence underscores the belief that these criminal activities are largely a product of drug abuse.
The current Kano State Government has launched a vigorous campaign against drug abuse and, as such, developed a keen interest in Danwawu’s case. Consequently, he was charged to court for prosecution.
A stringent bail condition was set, stipulating that the surety must be a Kano State Government Commissioner.
The rationale behind this condition was the expectation that no Commissioner would stand surety for Danwawu, given the government’s stance against drug abuse, thuggery, armed robbery, and other associated crimes.
Surprisingly, Hon. Ibrahim Namadi Dala, the Commissioner of Transport for Kano State, stood surety for the alleged drug dealer, leading to his release on bail.
This development has ignited a fresh debate: Is the Kano State Government genuinely committed to combating drug abuse, or is it merely engaging in political posturing?
Furthermore, considering the circumstances, was Hon. Namadi’s action legally or morally justifiable? These questions will be addressed in the conclusion of this piece.
These pressing issues have elicited diverse opinions from professionals, religious leaders (ulamas), politicians, and security agencies, particularly those who apprehended Danwawu and reportedly resisted attempts to secure his release.
Hon. Namadi later applied to the court for the withdrawal of his suretyship, but unfortunately, Danwawu absconded, rendering the application futile.
The application was inherently flawed, as Hon. Namadi was required to produce Danwawu before seeking to withdraw his suretyship.
Undoubtedly, this incident has cast a shadow on the sincerity of the government’s anti-drug efforts. To restore public trust and uphold the sanctity of the government, decisive action was imperative to demonstrate its disapproval of Hon. Namadi’s actions.
The government established a committee of inquiry to investigate the Commissioner’s conduct.
A day after the committee submitted its report, Hon. Namadi tendered his resignation from his appointment, which was subsequently accepted by the government.
This resignation itself sparked further discussion. The most compelling argument for its necessity was its potential to reaffirm public trust and confidence in the Kano State Government’s commitment to fighting drug abuse, and to reassure the populace that the government prioritizes their concerns.
Another critical issue is the allegation that Hon. Commissioner received $30,000 (Thirty Thousand Dollars) from the drug dealer, an accusation he has denied.
Furthermore, Hon. Namadi’s character has been questioned due to a past incident where he was reportedly declared wanted by a security agency.
While the Commissioner would naturally deny any gratification, a crucial question remains: How could Hon. Commissioner agree to stand surety in such a sensitive case?
What motivated him to potentially jeopardize his political career? It is widely speculated that such an action would not have been undertaken without some form of personal benefit.
Concerning the legality of standing surety in such a delicate matter, legally speaking, the Commissioner was within his rights.
Even if Danwawu were charged with a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment, there is no legal impediment to Hon. Commissioner standing surety for him. In essence, his action was legally permissible.
However, Hon. Commissioner’s action of standing surety for a declared wanted drug dealer was morally wrong.
As a member of the Executive Council, Hon. Commissioner had a moral obligation to align with and support the government’s ongoing fight against drug abuse.
His actions, therefore, constituted a significant affront to the government’s efforts, bordering on sabotage.
He cannot be fully exonerated from suspicions that he may have provided information to the drug dealer, potentially undermining the government’s anti-drug campaign.
To illustrate, while it is not forbidden (haram) for a Chief Imam to urinate by the roadside, it is morally reprehensible given his societal status.
Conversely, it is not morally wrong for an ordinary person to do so, and it would likely not elicit public complaint, unlike the Chief Imam.
Similarly, if an ordinary citizen had stood surety for Danwawu, there would likely be no public debate.
However, given Hon. Commissioner’s prominent position, his actions warrant significant scrutiny and discussion.
Now that Danwawu has absconded, what are the next steps? Procedurally, Hon. Commissioner will only be required to perfect the Bail Bond and will then be free.
This highlights the court’s unwitting contribution to this predicament by setting a relatively small bail bond amount.
In cases of this nature, the bail bond should ideally not be N5,000,000 or N10,000,000, especially when the suspect can afford such amounts.
Based on our experience in court, Bail Bonds for such cases should commence from hundreds of millions to even billions of Naira, or any amount that would deter both the suspect and the surety from arranging an escape, as occurred in this instance.
It is hoped that our courts will take heed and implement the necessary adjustments.
Barr. Badamasi Suleiman Gandu is a private legal practitioner based on Kano