COURT ORDERS EL-RUFAI TO ENTER DEFENCE IN ALLEGED RIBADU PHONE-TAPPING CASE

A Federal High Court in Abuja has ordered former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai to enter his defence in an ongoing criminal trial over allegations that he unlawfully intercepted telephone communications involving Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, after rejecting an attempt by the former governor to have the case dismissed without calling defence evidence. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ruled on Monday, October 26, that the Department of State Services had placed sufficient evidence before the court to require El-Rufai to respond to the allegations contained in a five-count amended charge, moving one of Nigeria’s most politically sensitive criminal cases into its next stage.

The ruling does not amount to a finding that El-Rufai is guilty. In Nigerian criminal procedure, a no-case submission allows a defendant to argue at the end of the prosecution’s case that the evidence presented is so insufficient that there is nothing requiring an answer. By dismissing El-Rufai’s application, the court determined only that the prosecution had crossed the threshold necessary for the trial to continue and that the former governor should be called upon to present a defence if he chooses to do so. His plea of not guilty remains in force, and the prosecution still bears the burden of proving its case to the standard required by law before any conviction could occur.

Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case until November 25, 2026, when El-Rufai is expected to open his defence. The former governor had filed the no-case submission after the DSS formally closed its prosecution case following the testimony of two witnesses. His lawyers had argued that the evidence did not establish a prima facie case and asked the court to discharge and acquit him without requiring him to testify or call witnesses. The DSS opposed that request, insisting that both oral and documentary material admitted during the proceedings was sufficient to justify calling El-Rufai to answer the allegations.

One of the documents highlighted by the prosecution was identified in court as Exhibit B, which the DSS says contains material amounting to an admission by El-Rufai concerning the alleged interception of Ribadu’s telephone communications. Prosecuting counsel Oluwole Aladedoye, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, argued during the September hearing that the defence had failed to adequately address that exhibit and said the prosecution’s two witnesses had established enough of a case for the trial to proceed. The court’s ruling on Monday accepted the prosecution’s position that there was sufficient evidence at this stage, although the judge’s decision should not be interpreted as confirming that the prosecution’s account is ultimately true.

El-Rufai’s legal team had taken the opposite position. During arguments on the no-case application, defence lawyers contended that the DSS had not established the essential elements of the alleged offences and that the prosecution’s evidence was incapable of supporting a conviction even if left unchallenged. They therefore urged the court to terminate the proceedings. Monday’s ruling means those arguments were unsuccessful at the preliminary defence threshold, and the former governor must now decide how to answer the evidence through witnesses, documents, legal submissions or other material permitted by the court.

The case originates from comments El-Rufai made during an appearance on ARISE Television’s Prime Time programme on February 13, 2026, following an earlier confrontation with security authorities. Prosecutors say El-Rufai stated during that interview that a person had wiretapped Ribadu’s phone and that he had been able to learn of an alleged instruction from the National Security Adviser concerning his arrest. The DSS subsequently treated those remarks not simply as political commentary but as potential evidence of unlawful access to national-security communications.

The original criminal case was filed in February as a three-count charge, but it was later expanded. On April 23, the DSS arraigned El-Rufai on a five-count amended charge before Justice Abdulmalik. He pleaded not guilty to all five counts. The allegations invoke provisions of Nigeria’s Cybercrimes legislation, the Nigerian Communications Act and rules protecting critical national information infrastructure, reflecting the prosecution’s contention that communications involving the National Security Adviser should receive heightened protection because of the sensitivity of the office.

Among the amended allegations is a claim that El-Rufai intentionally and without authorization intercepted Ribadu’s communications. Another count alleges unlawful interference with communications classified as part of Nigeria’s Critical National Information Infrastructure, while another accuses him of obtaining classified information concerning an alleged order for his arrest. Prosecutors have also relied on the February television interview as part of their case, arguing that statements made publicly by the former governor support the allegations. El-Rufai has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

An earlier version of the charge also accused El-Rufai of knowing individuals allegedly involved in the interception and failing to report them to the appropriate security agencies, as well as using technical equipment or systems in a manner the prosecution said compromised public safety and national security. The later amended charge reorganized and expanded the allegations, meaning reporting on the case must distinguish between accusations in the original February charge and the five counts on which he was subsequently arraigned in April.

The DSS’s case became more significant after witnesses testified during the prosecution stage. One of those witnesses was a DSS operative, while lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju was called under subpoena. Reporting from the proceedings says Adeyanju told the court that El-Rufai had made comments during a television interview referring to the interception of Ribadu’s phone. The prosecution has treated that media appearance as an important evidentiary component of its case, while the defence has challenged whether those comments establish the criminal conduct alleged.

The court has not yet ruled on the truth of the underlying accusations. The question before Justice Abdulmalik on Monday was narrower: whether, after the prosecution completed its presentation, enough evidence existed for the proceedings to continue. A finding that a defendant has a case to answer means the evidence deserves a response; it does not mean the judge has decided that the evidence is accurate, complete or sufficient for conviction.

That distinction is especially important because the case involves a former governor, a sitting National Security Adviser and politically sensitive allegations involving intelligence and surveillance. Public discussion around such cases can quickly turn preliminary legal findings into assumptions of guilt or innocence, but the criminal process has not reached that point. El-Rufai remains entitled to challenge the evidence, question the prosecution’s interpretation of his statements and present his own account.

The dispute over the February ARISE interview lies at the heart of the prosecution’s theory. El-Rufai had been discussing circumstances surrounding security actions against him when he referred to information he said came from someone who had listened to Ribadu’s communications. Prosecutors interpreted those comments as an admission of involvement or knowledge relating to unauthorized interception. The defence has argued that the government’s interpretation does not establish the criminal offences charged.

That difference between describing information obtained from another source and personally participating in unlawful interception could become central during the defence stage. Prosecutors will seek to establish that El-Rufai’s statements and other evidence demonstrate the required connection to unlawful access. The defence is likely to focus on the wording, context and legal meaning of his remarks and on whether the DSS has shown who actually carried out any alleged interception, how it occurred and what El-Rufai’s precise role was.

The technical nature of the allegations may also become increasingly important. An interception case can involve questions about telecommunications systems, access authorization, equipment, digital evidence and the chain through which information was obtained. If the defence challenges whether there is technical evidence directly linking El-Rufai to a surveillance operation, the prosecution may need to rely heavily on the material already admitted and any inferences the court is legally permitted to draw from it.

National-security considerations have also shaped the proceedings. The DSS previously sought measures concerning the identity and protection of witnesses, arguing that individuals participating in the case could face security risks. Defence lawyers opposed restrictions they believed could interfere with El-Rufai’s ability to know and challenge the evidence against him. That dispute reflects the broader tension in national-security prosecutions between protecting intelligence personnel and preserving an accused person’s constitutional right to a fair trial.

The prosecution’s reliance on Nigeria’s Cybercrimes law is equally significant. Amendments to the legislation have expanded rules governing unlawful access, communications interception and protection of digital infrastructure, while the federal government has increasingly classified key government communications systems as critical national information infrastructure. A prosecution involving the phone communications of the National Security Adviser could therefore become an important test of how those provisions are interpreted by the courts.

The Nigerian Communications Act also contains restrictions relating to unauthorized interception and interference with communications. The prosecution has argued that the alleged conduct crossed from political intelligence-gathering into criminal interference with protected communications. The defence has not accepted that characterization.

El-Rufai’s political prominence gives the case an additional dimension. He served as governor of Kaduna State from 2015 to 2023 and was previously Minister of the Federal Capital Territory. He was once a leading figure in the All Progressives Congress and a close ally of senior figures in the party but later became one of the government’s more prominent critics, making his legal battles the subject of intense political debate.

The phone-interception case is also not the only legal proceeding involving the former governor. He has faced separate investigations and criminal cases relating to allegations from his period in office, including corruption-related matters being pursued by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission. Those proceedings are legally distinct from the Ribadu communication case and should not be treated as evidence of guilt in one another.

In a related development, an FCT High Court recently dismissed a fundamental-rights action El-Rufai brought against the DSS, EFCC, ICPC and Attorney-General of the Federation over actions including security invitations, an attempted airport arrest and seizure of his passport. That judgment concerned the lawfulness of security-agency actions and is separate from the Federal High Court criminal trial now proceeding before Justice Abdulmalik.

The distinction between separate legal matters is important because multiple cases involving the same political figure can create the impression of a single consolidated prosecution when different courts, agencies, allegations and legal standards are involved. Monday’s decision concerned only the DSS case alleging unlawful interception of communications involving Ribadu.

The next phase of the trial could provide the clearest indication yet of El-Rufai’s substantive defence. Until now, much of his legal strategy in the case has focused on arguing that the government had failed to establish enough evidence to justify continuing the prosecution. With that argument rejected, the court is now expected to hear the response to the allegations themselves.

El-Rufai could choose to testify personally, although Nigerian criminal procedure does not automatically require a defendant to enter the witness box simply because a no-case submission fails. His lawyers may decide instead to call other witnesses or tender documentary evidence, depending on the strategy they consider appropriate. Whatever approach is taken, the defence will have an opportunity to challenge the prosecution’s account before final addresses and judgment.

The burden of proof remains on the prosecution. El-Rufai does not have to prove his innocence; the government must ultimately establish the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt if it is to secure a conviction. The Monday ruling does not reduce that burden.

The November 25 hearing is therefore an important procedural milestone rather than the conclusion of the case. If the defence calls witnesses, the prosecution may cross-examine them. The court could then receive final legal arguments from both sides before Justice Abdulmalik determines whether the prosecution has proved any or all of the five counts.

The case is likely to attract continued attention because of the unusual nature of the allegation. Criminal proceedings involving the alleged interception of a National Security Adviser’s communications raise obvious questions about the security of government telecommunications, the ability of non-state actors or political figures to obtain sensitive information and the safeguards surrounding senior officials.

If the prosecution ultimately demonstrates that Ribadu’s communications were unlawfully accessed, the case could expose serious vulnerabilities in state communications security. If the defence establishes that the government has misinterpreted El-Rufai’s remarks or failed to prove his involvement, it could raise equally serious questions about how authorities handled the case.

For that reason, the proceedings have significance beyond the individual defendant. Nigeria’s security agencies increasingly depend on digital communications systems for intelligence, military coordination and counterterrorism operations, making unauthorized access a potentially serious national-security concern. At the same time, cybercrime and surveillance laws must be applied consistently with constitutional protections, particularly where political speech and criminal allegations overlap.

The February interview that triggered the case illustrates that overlap. Political figures routinely make claims about government conduct and intelligence information, but statements that suggest access to intercepted communications can create legal consequences if prosecutors believe they reveal participation in unlawful surveillance.

El-Rufai’s defence may therefore seek to draw a clear line between knowledge of information and participation in obtaining it. The prosecution, by contrast, is expected to argue that the circumstances and statements before the court support a stronger inference. Justice Abdulmalik will ultimately have to determine which interpretation is supported by admissible evidence and the applicable statutes.

The trial also touches on the relationship between El-Rufai and Ribadu, two prominent northern Nigerian political and security figures whose careers have intersected over many years. Their current institutional positions place them on opposite sides of a dispute in which Ribadu’s communications are the alleged target and the DSS is prosecuting the former governor.

Ribadu himself is not on trial, and the case is not a judicial examination of his political conduct. The relevant issue is whether his communications were unlawfully intercepted and, if so, whether El-Rufai committed the offences alleged by the DSS.

That framing is important because the case has unfolded against a highly charged political background ahead of Nigeria’s 2027 election. El-Rufai has become active in opposition politics and has repeatedly criticized the Tinubu administration. His supporters may view the prosecution through a political lens, while government supporters may emphasize the national-security implications of his comments.

The court, however, is required to determine the case on evidence and law rather than partisan interpretation. Monday’s ruling indicates only that Justice Abdulmalik considers the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to move beyond the no-case stage.

The exact evidentiary weight of Exhibit B and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses will become clearer as the defence responds. A document described by one side as an admission may be interpreted differently when read in full context, and the defence will have an opportunity to make that argument.

Similarly, testimony concerning statements made during the ARISE interview may be tested against the actual recording and transcript. Courts typically consider not only isolated words but also context, intent and whether the prosecution has connected those words to each statutory element of the alleged offence.

The amended five-count charge increases that complexity because different counts may require proof of different elements. Conduct that could support one allegation may not necessarily prove another, meaning the court will eventually have to evaluate each count separately.

The defence stage could also produce new evidence relating to how El-Rufai claims he learned of any communication involving Ribadu. If he maintains that information came from another person, questions may arise about that individual’s identity, whether El-Rufai had any prior knowledge of interception activity and whether he had a legal obligation to report what he knew.

Any such testimony would likely face close cross-examination from the DSS, particularly because the government has treated the February statement as an important admission.

The case could therefore become both legally and technically complex even though the trigger was a televised political interview. What may have begun as a public claim about an attempted arrest has evolved into a prosecution under cybercrime and communications laws.

Monday’s ruling ensures that the court will now hear more of El-Rufai’s side before determining the outcome.

For VNTV readers, the most important point is that El-Rufai has not been convicted and the Federal High Court has not ruled that he actually wiretapped Ribadu. Justice Abdulmalik has ruled that the DSS presented enough evidence for the former governor to be required to answer the case.

The November 25 defence hearing will therefore be the next major date to watch. It could reveal whether El-Rufai chooses to testify, what evidence his lawyers intend to rely on and how they plan to challenge the government’s interpretation of his February remarks.

Until the court reaches a final judgment, the allegations remain contested. El-Rufai is entitled to the presumption of innocence, while the DSS is entitled to continue presenting its case within the judicial process.

The significance of Monday’s decision lies in that procedural development: the effort to terminate the prosecution at the no-case stage has failed, and the trial will continue.

What ultimately matters now is not the political reaction surrounding the case but whether the prosecution’s evidence survives the defence challenge and whether the Federal High Court is satisfied, after hearing both sides, that any of the five offences have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.