El-Rufai: To Begin Unlawful Interception Trial Defence November 25

• A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled November 25 for former Governor Nasir El-Rufai to begin his defence in an unlawful interception trial.
• Justice Joyce Abdulmalik dismissed El-Rufai's no-case submission, ruling that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence.
• El-Rufai faces five amended charges from the DSS for allegedly wiretapping National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu's phone.
• The charges stem from El-Rufai's February 2026 comments on Arise TV, where he claimed Ribadu's phone was intercepted.
• The court's decision requires El-Rufai to respond to the allegations, rejecting his attempt to be discharged without a defence.

The Federal High Court's decision to dismiss the no-case submission in the El-Rufai unlawful interception trial defence carries significant weight, particularly for legal practitioners advising on privacy and surveillance laws in Nigeria.

A Federal High Court in Abuja has scheduled November 25 for former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai to commence his defence in an ongoing trial concerning alleged unlawful interception of telephone conversations. This development follows a significant ruling by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, who dismissed El-Rufai's no-case submission on Monday. The court determined that the prosecution had presented adequate evidence, thereby compelling the former governor to respond to the allegations against him.

El-Rufai is currently facing a five-count amended charge initiated by the Department of State Services (DSS). These charges revolve around accusations that he illegally intercepted private telephone conversations. Specifically, the allegations concern the unauthorized monitoring of calls involving Nuhu Ribadu, who serves as the National Security Adviser.

The genesis of this legal challenge traces back to comments made by El-Rufai during an interview on Arise TV's Prime Time programme in February 2026. During this broadcast, he publicly claimed that "someone wiretapped" Ribadu's phone. He further asserted that this alleged interception allowed him to overhear the National Security Adviser issuing instructions to security operatives for his arrest. These public statements appear to have triggered the subsequent investigation and charges.

The recent decision by Justice Abdulmalik came after a period of intense legal arguments from both the defence and prosecution teams. The central point of contention was whether the evidence put forth by the Federal Government was sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the former governor, meaning enough evidence to proceed to a full trial.

Following the Federal Government's presentation of its case, which included testimony from two witnesses, El-Rufai's legal team opted to file a no-case submission. This procedural move sought to have the court discharge and acquit him of the charges without requiring him to present his own defence. Paul Erokoro, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) representing El-Rufai, argued on Monday that the prosecution had failed to meet the threshold for establishing a prima facie case against his client, urging the court to grant the application.

Conversely, the prosecution counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye, strongly advocated for the dismissal of El-Rufai's application. Aladedoye contended that both the oral testimonies and documentary evidence presented by the prosecution were robust enough to necessitate El-Rufai's defence. Justice Abdulmalik ultimately sided with the prosecution's argument, ruling that the evidence was indeed sufficient and ordering the former governor to proceed with his defence. The court subsequently adjourned the proceedings to November 25 for this purpose.

The Federal High Court's decision to dismiss the no-case submission in the El-Rufai unlawful interception trial defence carries significant weight, particularly for legal practitioners advising on privacy and surveillance laws in Nigeria. This ruling signals the judiciary's stance on what constitutes sufficient evidence to proceed with charges of unlawful interception, even against high-profile individuals. It underscores that public statements or alleged admissions can form a crucial part of the prosecution's case, compelling a defendant to offer a substantive response.

For lawyers, this case highlights the imperative for clients, especially those in public office or with significant media presence, to exercise caution regarding public pronouncements that could be construed as self-incriminating or indicative of involvement in illegal activities. The court's insistence on a full defence, despite a challenge to the prima facie case, suggests a low threshold for moving forward with such charges when the prosecution has laid a foundational evidentiary basis.

This development reinforces the need for robust defence strategies in cases involving alleged wiretapping or unlawful interception, emphasizing that a no-case submission may not always be a viable exit strategy. The ruling by Justice Joyce Abdulmalik effectively mandates a full trial, setting a precedent that could influence future prosecutions concerning privacy violations and the use of intercepted communications within Nigeria's legal framework.

Lawyers advising clients on privacy and surveillance laws in Nigeria should note the court's dismissal of a no-case submission against a high-profile individual for unlawful interception, signaling the judiciary's view on sufficient evidence for such charges and the need for robust defense strategies.

Source: Original reporting via Daily Trust and AllAfrica.