El-Rufai: DSS Alleges $600,000 EFCC Bribery in Kaduna Trial

• Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai is accused of earmarking $600,000 to bribe EFCC officials and intermediaries.
• A Department of State Services (DSS) forensic investigator testified that audio recordings captured discussions about frustrating an EFCC investigation into Singularity company.
• The defense objected to the witness's testimony, citing its omission from the prosecution's proof of evidence.
• The Kaduna State High Court ruled the testimony admissible, provided the defense is allowed to cross-examine the witness.
• Allegations include plans to liquidate Singularity in Nigeria and Mauritius to impede investigations, as well as preventing scrutiny of IHS.

This decision sets a notable precedent for procedural arguments in high-profile corruption trials, particularly concerning the interpretation and application of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law.

A Department of State Services (DSS) forensic investigator, Segun Kayode, recently presented testimony before the Kaduna State High Court, alleging that former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and his associates earmarked a substantial sum of $600,000 intended for Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) officials and intermediaries. This significant El-Rufai $600,000 EFCC bribery allegation Kaduna forms a central part of the ongoing trial against the former governor. Kayode, appearing as the first prosecution witness, detailed how $500,000 and $100,000 were purportedly set aside for these payments.

The core of the Department of State Services (DSS) forensic testimony involved forensic audio recordings, which reportedly captured conversations between El-Rufai and several individuals, including a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, AU Mustapha; Jimi Lawal; and Bashir El-Rufai. These discussions, according to Kayode, revolved around strategies to impede an EFCC investigation into a company known as Singularity. The investigator further alleged that Mustapha and Lawal were instructed to consult with one Ahmadu Sule to acquire a template previously utilized for liquidating another company, with the explicit aim of applying a similar process to Singularity.

The recorded conversations also reportedly touched upon plans to liquidate Singularity not only within Nigeria but also in Mauritius, where the company was already under scrutiny by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit. Additionally, Kayode informed the court that the audio evidence contained discussions concerning efforts to prevent the EFCC from investigating IHS, a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. These detailed allegations were presented during a nearly eight-hour court session, presided over by Justice Darius Khobo, with approximately two hours dedicated to playing the recorded conversations as evidence in the Nasir El-Rufai trial Kaduna High Court.

During the proceedings, a significant legal challenge arose regarding the admissibility of Segun Kayode's testimony. Paul Erokoro (SAN), lead counsel for El-Rufai, raised an objection, contending that the witness's name and a summary of his evidence were conspicuously absent from the prosecution's proof of evidence. Erokoro argued that this omission fundamentally undermined his client's constitutional right to a fair hearing, asserting that the defense was entitled to prior knowledge of the evidence it would be expected to address.

In response, Ayodeji Adedipe (SAN), representing the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) as the prosecution counsel, countered that Kayode was a subpoenaed witness. Adedipe clarified that the subpoena had been duly issued and signed by the court on June 30, 2026, and maintained that the absence of the witness's details from the initial proof of evidence did not automatically render his testimony inadmissible. He further assured the court that the defense would be afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness, citing relevant judicial authorities to support his position.

Erokoro, however, reiterated his stance, emphasizing that the crux of the matter was not merely whether the witness could testify, but rather whether the defense had received adequate notification to properly prepare for the evidence presented. He specifically referenced Section 210 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2017, arguing that the prosecution bore the responsibility of serving the subpoena on the defense to ensure proper disclosure and preparation.

After considering the arguments from both sides, Justice Darius Khobo delivered a ruling that acknowledged the procedural irregularity. The court recognized that while Segun Kayode's name and the summary of his evidence were indeed missing from the prosecution's proof of evidence, court records clearly indicated that he had been properly subpoenaed. Justice Khobo ultimately ruled that this omission did not automatically preclude the admissibility of the testimony, provided that the defense was granted the opportunity to conduct a thorough cross-examination of the witness.

Consequently, the judge overruled the defense's objection and directed Kayode to proceed with his testimony. This decision sets a notable precedent for procedural arguments in high-profile corruption trials, particularly concerning the interpretation and application of the Administration of Criminal Justice Law. The court's emphasis on the right to cross-examination as a safeguard for fairness, despite initial disclosure shortcomings, will be closely watched by legal practitioners. Following the ruling, the defense raised a further complaint regarding the late service of a hard copy of Kayode's findings, highlighting ongoing challenges in evidence management during the EFCC investigation Singularity company case.

Lawyers should closely monitor the court's ruling on the admissibility of subpoenaed witness testimony not initially included in the proof of evidence, as this sets a precedent for procedural arguments in high-profile corruption trials under the Administration of Criminal Justice Law. Compliance officers should note the detailed allegations of attempts to obstruct anti-graft investigations, including cross-border elements involving Mauritius, highlighting complex compliance risks for companies under scrutiny.

Source: Original reporting via the PUNCH newspaper.