The scheduled arraignment of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai on a three-count charge of unlawful interception of the National Security Adviser’s (NSA) phone communications suffered a major setback on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, at the Federal High Court in Abuja.
The Department of State Services (DSS), which filed the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, failed to produce El-Rufai in court despite a prior order authorizing his arraignment. Trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik was informed that the former governor remained in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), where he had been transferred following his initial detention by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) over separate money laundering allegations.
Counsel to the DSS, M. E. Ernest, leading a team of five prosecutors, could not explain the non-production, prompting the court to adjourn the matter to April 23, 2026, for possible arraignment or further hearing on pending motions.
El-Rufai, who governed Kaduna State from 2015 to 2023 and previously served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under President Olusegun Obasanjo, was expected to enter his plea on the cybercrime-related charges. The DSS alleges that on February 13, 2026, during an appearance on Arise TV’s Prime Time programme in Abuja, El-Rufai:
- “Aligned with others and unlawfully intercepted” the NSA’s telephone communications, contrary to and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
- “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,” an offence under Section 27(b) of the same Act.
- Used technical equipment, together with others still at large, that “compromised public safety, national security and instilled reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians,” in violation of Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
- The charges stem from statements El-Rufai allegedly made during the television interview, which the DSS interprets as an admission or evidence of involvement in intercepting NSA Nuhu Ribadu’s communications.
El-Rufai has strongly denied the allegations, describing them as politically motivated. In a pre-trial motion filed through his legal team, he urged the court to quash the charge on 17 grounds, arguing that:
- The offences are not known to law and the charge sheet is legally defective.
- No prima facie case has been established.
- The DSS lacks prosecutorial competence to bring the matter.
The proceedings constitute an abuse of court process and are politically motivated to embarrass and harass him.
The alleged “confession” from the TV interview does not meet legal standards: it was not made under caution, was not voluntary in a custodial context, and does not satisfy the Judges’ Rules for admissibility.
He insisted that “a casual remark in a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” and that elevating such a statement to a criminal offence violates his rights to freedom of expression (Section 39) and association (Section 40) under the 1999 Constitution.
The former governor had earlier accused the ICPC of detaining him on the NSA’s directive, following an alleged attempt by DSS operatives to “abduct” him at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja on February 12, 2026, upon his return from Cairo. He claimed the detention was based on information from someone who purportedly listened to the NSA’s conversations.
The case has drawn significant political attention, with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and other opposition figures raising concerns over El-Rufai’s health, access to family and lawyers, and the broader pattern of what they describe as selective prosecution of critics of the Tinubu administration.
As of Tuesday evening, no official statement had been issued by the DSS, ICPC, or the Office of the Attorney-General explaining the failure to produce El-Rufai in court. The adjournment to April 23 means the substantive trial remains delayed pending resolution of the preliminary objections and any further applications.
The matter continues to fuel debate on the boundaries of free speech, the use of cybercrime laws against public commentary, and the independence of anti-corruption and security agencies in politically sensitive cases.
