Former governor EL-RUFAI faces fresh charges

Friday, April 24, 2026 - The Federal Government, on Thursday, expanded the criminal case against former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, introducing fresh allegations bordering on interference with critical national infrastructure and unauthorised access to classified information.

The new counts are contained in a further amended five-count charge filed on April 13, 2026, before the Federal High Court in Abuja, replacing an earlier three-count charge instituted on February 16, 2026.

At his arraignment on Thursday before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, El-Rufai, however, pleaded not guilty to all counts after the court granted the prosecution’s request to substitute the initial charge.

The Department of State Services, through its counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), told the court that the amended charge significantly revised the allegations against the former governor, urging the court to adopt the new processes.

Unlike the earlier charge, which focused mainly on alleged unlawful interception of communications, the fresh counts introduce a broader national security dimension.

In count one of the amended charge, the prosecution accused El-Rufai of “intentionally and unlawfully interfer[ing] with the communication” of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, describing the communication channel as part of Nigeria’s critical national information infrastructure.

The charge states that the alleged act contravenes provisions of the Designation and Protection of Critical National Information Infrastructure Order, 2024, and is punishable under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.

In a separate and newly introduced count, the prosecution alleged that El-Rufai, “without authorisation, intentionally secured access to classified information” relating to Ribadu, including details of his arrest and detention order issued on February 12, 2026.

This count marks a shift from the earlier framing of the case, which was limited to claims of intercepted communications, to a more serious allegation involving breach of classified state information.

The amended charge also retains and restructures earlier allegations. Count four accuses the defendant of unlawfully intercepting the NSA’s communications, while count five alleges that he and others still at large used technical systems that compromised public safety and national security, thereby instilling fear among Nigerians.

Part of count four reads, “That you, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, adult, male, intentionally and without authorisation, intercepted the communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, as admitted by you on 13th February, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja… and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes Act.”

Count five further states, “That you… did use technical equipment or systems which compromised public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians… and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.”

The February charge had contained only three counts, focusing on alleged admission of unlawful interception, failure to report individuals involved, and actions capable of undermining public safety.

However, the amended charge introduces two additional counts and separates previously combined allegations into distinct offences, effectively broadening the scope of criminal liability.

Defence counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), confirmed receipt of the amended charge and did not oppose its substitution.

Following this, the court struck out the earlier charge and proceeded with the fresh arraignment.

After the plea was taken, the prosecution applied for an accelerated hearing, seeking three consecutive trial dates.

The defence objected, arguing that El-Rufai’s access to legal counsel could be affected due to his custody under the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission.

The defence also drew the court’s attention to a pending bail application filed on February 17, noting that an earlier missing affidavit had been located.

The DSS informed the court that it was not opposing the bail request.

In another application, the prosecution sought to shield the identities of two witnesses, requesting that their names be replaced with pseudonyms in court records, citing security concerns.

The defence opposed the request, insisting that it violated the defendant’s constitutional right to know his accusers and that no concrete threat had been demonstrated.

Further arguments arose over access to proof of evidence, with the defence urging the court to compel disclosure to enable proper preparation for trial.

The prosecution opposed the application, describing it as procedurally misplaced.

The defence also filed a motion seeking to quash the amended charge, while the prosecution asked the court to dismiss it as lacking merit.

After listening to both sides, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to May 18, 19 and 20, 2026, for hearing.

Bail bid fails

The PUNCH gathered that the Kaduna State High Court refused El-Rufai’s bail application on the grounds that the seriousness of the allegations against him, as well as concerns over possible interference with investigations, outweighed the arguments advanced for his release.

The ruling was delivered on 21 April 2026 by Justice D.H. Khobo of the Kaduna Judicial Division in Charge No: KDH/KAD/ICPC/01/2026, filed by the Federal Republic of Nigeria through the ICPC.

El-Rufai had approached the court via a motion dated 25 March 2026, seeking bail “either on self-recognisance or upon such liberal terms as the court may deem fit.”

His application, brought under Sections 35(4) and 36(5) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and provisions of the Kaduna State ACJL 2017, argued that the offences were not capital in nature and, therefore, carried a presumption in favour of bail.

He further contended that he had strong community ties, fixed addresses, and substantial assets, which, according to him, eliminated any risk of flight.

El-Rufai also told the court he voluntarily returned from Egypt on 16 February 2026 to honour an EFCC invitation, and argued that the amended charge was “fundamentally defective” and “unintelligible.”

He also raised health concerns, claiming he required specialist medical attention.

The ICPC opposed the application through a nine-paragraph counter-affidavit deposed to by Idris Abubakar, insisting that the offences were serious and “economically sabotaging.”

The anti-graft agency argued that the former governor posed a flight risk, adding that there was a likelihood he could interfere with witnesses and ongoing investigations involving other suspects.

It also alleged an incident at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport, Abuja, on 12 February 2026, where El-Rufai allegedly obstructed law enforcement officers.

The ICPC further dismissed his medical claims, stating that no supporting medical report was provided.

In his ruling, Justice Khobo held that the gravity of the nine-count charge, coupled with allegations of interference and obstruction, made bail inappropriate at this stage.

The court stated, “In the instant application, given the gravity of the nine-count charge against the defendant/applicant, the respondent’s credible apprehension regarding the interference with the ongoing investigations linked to other persons still at large… the interest of justice is best served by ensuring the applicant remains available for an accelerated trial.”

The judge also faulted the defence on health grounds, noting, “The applicant in my view has failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to justify the grant of bail on health grounds.”

Consequently, the court held, “Accordingly, the defendant/applicant’s application for bail pending trial fails and is hereby refused.”

Justice Khobo ordered that El-Rufai “shall remain in the custody of the respondent (ICPC) pending the commencement of the trial,” while directing that proceedings be conducted on an accelerated basis.

The court also fixed June 1, 2, 3 and 4, 2026, for day-to-day hearing, following what it described as a consensus between prosecution and defence counsel.

For now, the former governor remains in ICPC custody as the substantive trial awaits commencement.