Kano State Government To Ex-Commissioners:Why Office Property Are Not Yours
By Barrister Aminu Hussaini
In every functioning democracy, one principle must remain sacred: public assets belong to the people, not to those temporarily entrusted with power.
That is why the recent recovery of official vehicles by the Kano State Public Complaints and Anti-Corruption Commission should not be controversial. It should be commended.
By the principles of public “Code of Conduct”, holding an office is a temporary responsibility held in trust for the people. When the term ends, or the individual occupant leaves; the assets stay. Therefore, all assets, including vehicles, equipment and facilities are purchased with public funds and remain the exclusive property of the state.
Every property belongs to government/state, not the office occupant. There is no personal claim. Holding a position does not grant any “ownership” over the office itself or the property attached to it.
Every action taken and every resource used must be justifiable as a benefit to the public. The office exists to serve the citizenry. Using official resources for personal enrichment is defined as a breach of trust and a form of corruption, therefore, vehicles and equipment are strictly for performing official duties, not for personal convenience or status.
The assets are tied to the position, not the person. Upon vacating a role, all property must be surrendered to the successor or the government.
Since it’s for public office use, it’s not yours, leave it.
Office itself isn’t “owned” by anyone; it’s a public trust and facilities, staff, vehicles are for official duties only.
The Government of Kano State did not dispatch political thugs. It did not act in secrecy. It followed due process and secured a court order before reclaiming vehicles assigned to former commissioners who had resigned their positions. That is not persecution, it is procedure.
Yet, the narrative being pushed that official vehicles are “entitlements” that can be retained after exit from office, is never true. This argument stretches logic and the law beyond reason. An official vehicle is assigned for the execution of public duties. Once those duties cease, so does the privilege ceases too. Public service is not a retirement bonus scheme.
The former officials have cited statutory provisions to justify their position. That is their right. But until a competent court declares otherwise, government property remains government property. If every departing political appointee decided to reinterpret entitlement laws in their favour, the state treasury would quickly become a casualty of convenience.
Let us also be clear: accountability does not become vendetta simply because political alignments have shifted. Governor Abba Kabir Yusuf’s political journey is irrelevant to a simple administrative truth; assets purchased with taxpayers’ money must be returned when public office ends.
The deeper issue is cultural. Nigeria has long struggled with the blurred line between stewardship and ownership in public office. Vehicles, residences, security details, these are tools of service, not symbols of personal reward. The moment we normalize their retention, we legitimise corruption and entrenched a quiet erosion of public trust.
If the former commissioners believe the law grants them permanent ownership, the courts are open. That is how democracies resolve disputes. But resisting lawful recovery sends the wrong message: that power, once tasted, must leave behind souvenirs.
The people of Kano deserve better. They deserve leaders, past and present, who understand that public office is a loan, not a legacy. And when the loan expires, the keys must be returned the owners – the public.
Barrister Aminu Hussaini is S.A. to the Governor of Kano State on Justice/Constitutional Matters