Ahmed Yusuf, Abuja
The arraignment of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over allegations of unlawfully intercepting the phone communication of the Nuhu Ribadu, was on Wednesday stalled following the failure of the Department of State Services (DSS) to produce him before the Federal High Court.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the case till April 23, 2026, after hearing that the former governor remains in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
El-Rufai, who governed Kaduna State from 2015 to 2023 and earlier served as Federal Capital Territory Minister under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, faces a three-count charge bordering on alleged threats to national security.
The DSS, in the charge endorsed by a five-man prosecution team led by M. E. Ernest, alleged that El-Rufai unlawfully intercepted the NSA’s telephone conversations — an offence contrary to Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act.
According to court filings, the former governor purportedly admitted during a February 13 interview on Arise TV Prime Time Programme that he had knowledge of and association with persons involved in the unlawful interception but failed to alert security agencies.
The DSS maintained that such omission contravenes Section 27(b) of the Cybercrimes Act. It further accused El-Rufai and unnamed collaborators of deploying technical equipment that endangered public safety and national security, in violation of Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act.
It will be recalled that El-Rufai had earlier accused the DSS of attempting to “abduct” him at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on February 12 while returning from Cairo. He claimed the operation was ordered by the NSA through the ICPC.
In a motion challenging the competence of the charges (FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026), El-Rufai urged the court to quash the case, insisting that his remarks on Arise TV were mere “casual comments,” not a confession.
He argued that for a statement to qualify as a confession, it must be voluntarily made under caution and in accordance with the Judges’ Rules, contending that his televised comments were made in a free discussion setting and could not amount to an admission of guilt.
“A casual remark on a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” his motion stated.
The case is now expected to resume on April 23 for further proceedings.
