The scheduled arraignment of the former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, over his alleged unlawful interception of the phone communication of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, suffered a setback on Wednesday.
The case could not proceed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, following the failure of the Department of State Services (DSS) to produce him for trial.
It will be recalled that the former governor, who was initially detained by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC)—which is also investigating money laundering allegations against him—was later transferred to the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
While in ICPC’s custody, the court gave the DSS the nod to dock him on a three-count charge that bordered on alleged threat to national security.
When the case was called up on Wednesday, the court was told that the ICPC still retained the defendant in its custody.
In view of the development, trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the case till April 23.
El-Rufai, who was governor between 2015 and 2023 and also Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) under former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration, was billed to appear before trial Justice Abdulmalik to enter his plea.
The DSS had in the charge that was endorsed by a team of five prosecutors from the Department of State Services (DSS) led by M. E. Ernest, alleged that he committed a crime with some people who are currently on the run.
It alleged the defendant admitted on February 13 when he appeared as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, that he aligned with others and unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the NSA, thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
It alleged that the defendant had in the course of the television interview, stated that he knew and related to a certain individual who had unlawfully intercepted the NSA’s telephone communications without reporting the person to the relevant security agencies.
By failing to report the crime, El-Rufai was said to have committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition , Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.
The agency equally alleged that the defendant, while acting in cahoots with others that are still at large, used technical equipment that compromised public safety, national security and instilled reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians, following the unlawful interception of the NSA’s calls.
He was accused of committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 131 (2) Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
It will be recalled that El-Rufai, in his reaction to what he described as an attempt by operatives of the DSS to “abduct” him at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja on February 12, 2026, upon returning from Cairo, insisted that the security agency was being instigated by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which he said had received a directive from the NSA, Ribadu, to detain him.
He claimed the information got to him through someone who listened in on the NSA’s telephone conversations.
In a motion he filed to challenge his trial, El-Rufai gave 17 reasons why the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, which the DSS entered against him, should be quashed by the court.
Aside from his argument that the charge was incompetent and legally defective, the former governor argued that the DSS has no legal backing to elevate a “casual remark” he made during a television interview to “a confession” that he had indeed tapped the NSA’s telephone line as alleged.
He argued that the statement he made on Arise TV did not constitute a confessional statement in law, saying for a statement to be admissible as a confession, “it must be made under caution, voluntarily, and in circumstances that satisfy the Judges’ Rules.”
El-Rufai maintained that statements he made in the course of his television interview were “without any caution or warning, in a voluntary public discussion and without the protections afforded to suspects in custody.
“A casual remark in a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” he further argued.
