The Department of State Services (DSS) has arraigned former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, before a Federal High Court in Abuja on a five-count amended charge bordering on the alleged tapping of the mobile phone of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
The DSS alleged that EI-Rufai intentionally and unlawfully interfered with the communication of the NSA, which is part of Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNII) as contained in Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024 gazetted as Statutory Instrument No. 21 of 2024, which he admitted on February 13 while appearing as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja.
The prosecution noted that the offence was a breach of national security and violated Paragraph 7 (b) & (c) of the Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024 and punishable under Section 5 (1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.
El-Rufai pleaded not guilty to the charge, after which the prosecution counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), requested three days for the trial.
Earlier, counsel for the DSS, Aladedoye, informed the court about the amended five-count charge under which the ex-governor was arraigned.
In his response, El-Rufai’s counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), noted that his client had been in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) where he found it difficult to access him, adding that the court ought to consider his bail application dated February 17.
The prosecution further requested an order of the court for the concealment of the identities of witnesses expected to appear in the matter, such as shielding of faces and use of pseudonyms, to prevent possible attacks from the defendant’s supporters.
But defence counsel opposed the application, arguing that the approval would affect the constitutional right of the defendant to know his accusers.
He added that there was no evidence before the court showing El-Rufai had any cult-like followership or posed a threat during the trial to warrant the concealed trial.
After the submissions, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned to May 18, 19 and 20.
The amended five-count charges which replaced the three-count read in part, “That you, Mallam Nasir EI-Rufai, adult, male, intentionally and unlawfully interfered with the communication of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, which constitutes Critical National Information Infrastructure (CNI) as contained in Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024 gazetted as Statutory Instrument No. 21 of 2024, as admitted by you on 13 February, 2026 while appearing as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court and thereby committed an offence contrary to Paragraph 7(b) & (c) of the Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024 and punishable under Section 5 (1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.
“That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, without authorization, intentionally secured access to classified information by the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, ordering your arrest and detention on 12th of February, 2026, as admitted by you on 13 February, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this honourable court, and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 6 (2) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.
Delays in El Rufai’s bail ruling
Although El-Rufai’s lawyer pointed out the accessibility of his client within the three days of the trial as the ground to object to the adjourned dates and the DSS did not object to the bail application, the court did not rule on his bail immediately as expected.
Besides, El-Rufai’s other bail applications in the other trial before a high court in Kaduna on a 10-count charge bordering on alleged money laundering and abuse of office valued at N579.6 million and $1.1 million, had been delayed several times.
The court had on April 1 fixed April 14 for the bail. It later shifted it to April 21 and again remanded him in ICPC custody pending the trial from the first week of June.
Furthermore, journalists reported the blockage of coverage of the trial in Kaduna, which may explain the latest DSS application in Abuja to conceal his trial from the public, which lawyers say violated Section 36(4)(a)(b) of the Nigerian Constitution. The section stipulates that criminal trials must be held in public, except for a few specific terrorism cases.
Worried by the restraining of his liberty, El-Rufai, on April 12, petitioned the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, seeking the recusal of the trial judge in Kaduna, Justice R. M. Aikawa, from “Given the pending disciplinary complaints, the history of the proceedings, and the current refusal to recuse, and every sign of judicial capture of the subject judge, the continued handling of this criminal matter – which involves my liberty and other fundamental rights – by Hon. Justice R. M. Aikawa is untenable in law, prudence, common sense and judicial ethics,” he wrote.
Denying defendant access to lawyer, bail violates fair hearing –Lawyers
Reacting to the matter, a former chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Garki Branch, Obioma Ezenwobodo Esq, said an accused person is deemed innocent until convicted by a court of law and a defendant must enjoy all their rights.
“It is within the right to fair hearing of El-Rufai to have access to his lawyers to enable him to adequately prepare for his trial. Denying such is against fair hearing and the rule of law,” he said.
Similarly, Adam Abdulkadir Esq, said denying El-Rufai’s lawyer access constitutes a clear violation of the ex-governor’s fundamental rights under Section 36(6)(c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), which affirms that an accused person is entitled to defend himself through counsel of choice – a right rendered hollow without access.
“Section 35(2) further mandates that any detained person shall be allowed to consult a legal practitioner. ‘Shall’ is used to impose a mandatory duty. This is reinforced by Section 17(2) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, which obligates prompt access, while the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners 2023 impose a duty on lawyers to represent clients diligently, which presupposes unfettered access,” he said.
He said the option for the defendant is to seek immediate procedural recourse in a fundamental rights action seeking declaratory relief, access, and damages within pending matters; to evoke habeas corpus (a judicial order forcing authorities to justify the detention of an individual) and to petition relevant bodies like the NBA and the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) to reinforce compliance.
On his part, Barr. Chibueze Maduka said a remand has a life span under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, noting that the defendant ought to enjoy his bail pending his conviction or acquittal on the alleged offences.
Also, Ikoro N. Ikoro Esq said justice means fairness to all parties concerned, noting that “in the criminal justice system, justice must be seen to be done or meted out to everyone equally.”
“Once someone is being treated in a way that is special or the innocent or impartial bystander smells prosecution, then the system is likely being tainted.
“What I have known as a legal practitioner for over 20 years post-call is that an accused person is presumed innocent.
“This presumption is why bail applications are taken timeously. The essence of a bail application is to enable an accused or defendant to appear and attend his trial. I am unable to contemplate a situation where a bail application will be adjourned to two months and the court is not even on vacation,” he added.
CTC shows judge denied El-Rufai’s bail application
The Kaduna State High Court on Tuesday, April 21, denied the bail application of El-Rufai. Darius Khobo, the presiding judge, held that it was in the interest of justice for El-Rufai to remain in custody to be available for trial.
The former governor was arraigned by the ICPC on nine counts bordering on the alleged conferment of benefits under false pretences and dishonest disposal of loan funds.
El-Rufai, however, pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Journalists were barred from the court proceedings, with reporters relying on information from counsel to report the issues.
In the certified true copy (CTC) of the ruling delivered on April 21 and obtained by TheCable, the judge said El-Rufai’s bail application was supported by a 24-paragraph affidavit deposed by Muhammed Bala Aliyu.
The judge said El-Rufai argued that the offences are non-capital, noting that he is a former governor with deep community ties.
Khobo added that the former FCT minister said he voluntarily returned from Egypt, that the charge is fundamentally defective, and that he has health conditions requiring specialist monitoring.
The judge said the ICPC opposed the bail application and filed a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit dated April 13, deposed to by Idris Abubakar.
Khobo said the ICPC argued that the offences against El-Rufai are “economically sabotaging” and that there is a “genuine fear of interference with witnesses and ongoing investigations involving other persons still at large.”
The ICPC said El-Rufai obstructed law enforcement officers at Abuja airport in February and that the former governor is a “flight risk with the means to evade trial due to his high standing in society.”
The commission also said “no medical evidence was provided to substantiate the claim of ill health” by El-Rufai.
Ubong Akpan, counsel for El-Rufai, told the court that the defendant’s prayer for bail was “anchored primarily on constitutional and statutory presumptions in favour of liberty.”
Osuobeni Akponimisingha, counsel for the ICPC, opposed the bail application, urging the court to prioritise the severity of the alleged economic crimes and the risk of interference.
In his ruling, the judge said El-Rufai’s bail application “relies heavily” on his status as a former governor and former minister, adding that his “high status is a double-edged sword”.
The judge said the apprehension of the ICPC that the release of El-Rufai may sabotage the ongoing investigations into other suspects still at large is “a weighty consideration”.
The judge held that the ICPC made “weighty depositions” in its counter-affidavit to justify why the bail application should not be granted, adding that the applicant failed to file a further affidavit to counter the respondent.
“It is, however, noteworthy here that in spite [of] these weighty depositions in the Prosecution/Respondent’s counter affidavit, which sought to controvert the depositions in the Applicant’s supporting affidavit, the Applicant never deemed it fit to file a further and better affidavit to further controvert the said weighty depositions in the Prosecution/Respondent’s counter affidavit.
“In the instant case, therefore, failure to file a further affidavit by the applicant to further controvert the above-outlined weighty depositions in the Respondent’s counter affidavit leaves the said weighty depositions in the counter affidavit unchallenged and deemed to be admitted as being correct, and I so hold.
“The law is trite: if in an application for bail pending trial there is good reason to believe or strongly suspect that the accused will jump bail, thereby making himself unavailable to stand his trial, and/or will interfere with the witnesses, thereby constituting an obstacle in the way of justice, the Court will be acting within its undoubted discretion to refuse bail.
“In the instant application, the applicant alluded to facts that he has health conditions requiring specialist monitoring, but the applicant did not attach any medical evidence to substantiate his claim of ill-health.
“The law is settled that where a bail application seeks to lay claim to ill-health, credible evidence in that branch of medicine ought to be made available before the court by the Applicant.
“Accordingly, the Defendant/Applicant’s application for bail pending trial fails and is hereby REFUSED. The Defendant/Applicant shall remain in the custody of the Respondent (ICPC) pending the commencement of the trial.
“The Respondent/Prosecution is hereby ordered to ensure the trial of the Defendant commences expeditiously and shall be given an accelerated hearing by this Court on a day-to-day basis where practicable,” the judge held.
Afterwards, the prosecutor and El-Rufai’s counsel agreed that the trial should commence the first week of June. The case was then adjourned to June 1, 2, 3, and 4, 2026.
Journalists reduced to ‘onlookers’ in El-Rufai’s trial – NUJ
Since the commencement of El-Rufai’s trial, the media have been shut out of coverage, with journalists relying on briefings from counsel for both sides after each proceeding.
The development has drawn criticisms from lawyers and media professionals, who say barring journalists from covering El-Rufai’s trial is against constitutional provisions.
The Chairman of the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), Kaduna State Council, Abdulgafar Alabelewe, expressed concern over the exclusion of journalists from court proceedings related to the trial of El-Rufai, describing the situation as “unfortunate.”
Speaking in reaction to the development, Alabelewe said the restriction of media access to courtrooms undermines the role of the press in matters of national interest, particularly in cases involving allegations of corruption or security concerns.
“It is an unfortunate situation because the media have been reduced to mere onlookers in matters of national interest. Issues of corruption and security are of public concern, and journalists should be granted full access to observe and report on proceedings, whether at the stage of prosecution or trial,” he said.
The NUJ chairman noted that the incident in Kaduna is not isolated, recalling previous instances where journalists were either denied entry into court premises or subjected to restrictive access under the guise of crowd control.
He alleged that, in some cases, individuals without direct involvement in proceedings were granted access based on social status, while accredited reporters were excluded.
Alabelewe further highlighted the risks posed by limited access, explaining that journalists are often forced to rely on second-hand information from legal representatives, which can sometimes be misleading.
“We have witnessed situations where lawyers misled journalists with inaccurate accounts of court rulings, leading to conflicting reports in the media,” he said, citing experiences during the 2023 post-election tribunal proceedings.
He also raised concerns about the safety of journalists, noting that reporters are sometimes left outside court premises where they may be exposed to threats from hostile individuals.