Emir of Ilorin displayed uncommon courage by granting Tinubu, five others bail under military regime

A Professor of Public Law at the University of Ilorin, Lukman Adebisi Abdulrauf, has described the decision of the Emir of Ilorin, Alhaji Ibrahim Sulu-Gambari, to grant bail to Bola Tinubu and five others during Nigeria’s military era as an act of “uncommon courage”, highlighting it as one of the defining moments of the monarch’s judicial career.

Abdulrauf made the observation while reviewing The Bar, The Bench, and The Crown, a book published in honour of the Emir of Ilorin and unveiled during the 2026 National Conference of the National Association of Kwara State Law Students (NAKLAS) in Ilorin.

The law professor’s review examined several landmark judgments delivered by the former Court of Appeal justice, describing the section on decided cases as “the heart of the book” where ceremonial tributes give way to serious legal scholarship.

Among the cases discussed was Ebute v. State (1994), a politically sensitive case involving six persons charged with treasonable felony during the military administration of late General Sani Abacha. One of the accused persons was Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who would later become Nigeria’s president three decades later.

According to Abdulrauf, the trial court had initially granted bail to some of the accused persons before revoking it on the basis of alleged “changed circumstances” contained in a proof of evidence that was never placed before counsel for argument.

He noted that Justice Sulu-Gambari, sitting on the Court of Appeal, overturned the decision and held that judicial discretion must be exercised transparently, especially where personal liberty is at stake.

“Justice Sulu-Gambari’s judgment reversed this, holding that discretion must be exercised judicially and that a court ‘must state the reason relied upon’ when exercising any discretion, particularly where personal liberty is at stake,” Abdulrauf wrote.

The reviewer said the significance of the ruling extended beyond legal doctrine.

“In 1994, under a military government with a history of detaining opponents indefinitely, granting bail to persons accused of plotting to overthrow the Head of State required something more than legal knowledge,” he stated.

“It required what Kehinde Eleja SAN calls ‘uncommon courage’ — a quality he notes, with barely concealed sorrow, is ‘now in short supply’.”

Abdulrauf noted that the book contains four separate analyses of the case from different perspectives, including political context, constitutional liberty, procedural propriety and the limits of appellate intervention.

The professor also pointed out another judgment which he described as one of the most politically significant discussions in the publication.

The case, Ogungbemi v. Asamu (1986), involved a land dispute between a Methodist Church and opposing parties. Abdulrauf said the judgment demonstrated judicial impartiality in a society often divided along religious and ethnic lines.

He noted that the chapter, written by Dauda Ridwan Sarumi, examined the decision through the lens of Islamic teachings on justice and fairness.

According to him, the case was remarkable because it involved a devout Muslim jurist from a prominent Islamic family delivering a lead judgment in favour of a Christian institution.

“The case is remarkable in itself — a devout Muslim jurist from a prominent Islamic family delivering the lead judgment in favour of a Methodist Church in a land dispute, reversing a lower court that had found against the Church,” he wrote.

Abdulrauf said the significance of the decision went beyond compliance with common law standards.

“It is also, in a quiet way, one of the most politically pointed essays in the book: in a polity where ethnicity and religion are omnipresent fault lines, a Muslim judge ruling impartially for a Christian institution deserves to be highlighted, not as an anomaly, but as a standard.”

The reviewer described the essay’s use of Qur’anic principles to explain judicial impartiality as unusual in Nigerian legal scholarship and said it offered valuable insight into the compatibility of Islamic ethical norms with modern legal principles.

Abdulrauf also praised the analysis of A.B. Manu & Co. (Nig.) Ltd v. Costain (W.A.) Ltd (1994), describing it as one of the finest essays in the collection.

The case addressed whether a procedural error in a court process was sufficient to invalidate proceedings. He said the judgment advanced the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities.

Quoting from the judgment, Abdulrauf noted that the decision reinforced the notion that “justice is not a fencing game”, a principle that later influenced several decisions of superior courts.

He further commended the book’s treatment of commercial law, land law and private international law, saying several contributors went beyond merely recounting court decisions and instead engaged critically with the reasoning behind them.

In his overall assessment, Abdulrauf said the publication succeeds in demonstrating the enduring contributions of Sulu-Gambari to Nigerian jurisprudence through rigorous legal analysis rather than ceremonial praise.

“The verdict is largely favourable,” he concluded, noting that the book effectively documents the intellectual and judicial legacy of the Emir through evidence-based scholarship.

The Bar, The Bench, and The Crown chronicles the legal career and traditional leadership journey of Sulu-Gambari, who rose through the judiciary to become a Justice of the Court of Appeal before ascending the throne as the Emir of Ilorin.