Reported by: Oahimire Omone Precious | Edited by: Oravbiere Osayomore Promise.
The Department of State Services has asked a Federal High Court in Abuja to conceal the identities of two witnesses expected to testify in the trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El‑Rufai, who is facing a five‑count amended charge over the alleged unauthorised interception of a telephone conversation involving the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu. El‑Rufai was formally arraigned before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik on Thursday, April 23, 2026, and pleaded not guilty to all counts. Shortly after the plea was recorded, DSS counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), moved an application seeking an order to allow the witnesses to testify under pseudonyms and outside public view, arguing that such measures were necessary because the witnesses and their families could be exposed to harm from individuals sympathetic to the defendant.
The prosecution informed the court that a further amended five‑count charge had been filed on April 13, replacing an earlier three‑count charge. El‑Rufai’s counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), confirmed receipt of the amended charge and did not oppose its substitution. The court struck out the earlier charge, read the new counts to the former governor, and recorded his not guilty plea. The DSS then requested three consecutive trial dates, but the defence objected, citing the difficulty of accessing the defendant, who has been in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) since his arrest.
Iyamu drew the court’s attention to a pending bail application filed on February 17. When it emerged that a further affidavit in support of the application was missing from the court file, Justice Abdulmalik stood down the matter to allow the omission to be rectified. After the brief adjournment, the document was located, and the prosecution confirmed that it did not oppose the bail application.
The prosecution’s application for witness anonymity became the main point of legal contention. Aladedoye argued that the identities of the two witnesses should not appear in public court records and that pseudonyms should be used during trial. He predicated the request on security grounds, stating that the witnesses’ families could be vulnerable to attack from persons sympathetic to El‑Rufai.
The defence strongly opposed the application. Iyamu told the court that an accused person has a constitutional right to know those testifying against him and that the prosecution had not shown any evidence that El‑Rufai poses a threat or commands a following capable of endangering witnesses. He warned that granting a blanket anonymity order could create serious prejudice against the defendant and undermine the fairness of the trial. The defence also argued that there was no evidence before the court suggesting that El‑Rufai had any cult‑like followership or posed any danger to the witnesses.
In addition to opposing the witness‑protection request, the defence applied for an order directing the prosecution to furnish it with proof of evidence to enable adequate preparation for trial. The prosecution opposed this, arguing that the materials sought by the defence were outside the scope of documents already filed before the court.
Iyamu further informed the court that the defence had filed an application seeking to quash the amended charge entirely. The prosecution, in response, submitted a written address urging the court to dismiss the application for lacking merit. Justice Abdulmalik declined to rule on any of the pending applications during Thursday’s hearing and instead adjourned the case to May 18, 19 and 20, 2026, for the hearing of all pending motions, including the prosecution’s witness‑protection request, the defence’s application to quash the charge, and the bail application.
The charges against El‑Rufai stem from a television interview he granted on February 13, 2026, in which he stated that an associate had wiretapped the NSA’s phone. Count four of the amended charge alleges that the former governor “intentionally and without authorization, intercepted the communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, as admitted by you on 13 February, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s Prime Time Programme”. Another count accuses him of using technical equipment or systems which compromised public safety and national security. El‑Rufai has consistently denied any wrongdoing, and his legal team has described the prosecution as politically motivated.
The DSS’s request for witness anonymity has drawn arguments about the proper balance between protecting individuals who agree to testify in sensitive national security cases and safeguarding the right of an accused person to face his accusers. Nigerian courts have previously granted similar protective measures in cases involving terrorism and organised crime, but the El‑Rufai case is unfolding in a highly charged political atmosphere. The former governor is already facing separate corruption charges brought by the ICPC and has remained in the agency’s custody since his arrest in February.
Legal observers note that the Witness Protection and Management Act 2022 provides a legal framework for shielding the identities of vulnerable witnesses, but the Act also requires applicants to demonstrate a genuine threat to the safety of the witnesses or their families. The DSS has argued that such a threat exists, but the defence maintains that the agency has produced no concrete evidence of any danger.
As the court prepares to hear the various applications in May, the former governor and his legal team are signalling a vigorous fight on multiple fronts. The adjournment to May 18 means that El‑Rufai will remain in ICPC custody at least until then, pending the outcome of his bail application. The trial has drawn intense public interest, not only because of the nature of the charges but also because El‑Rufai is a prominent opposition figure positioning himself ahead of the 2027 elections. For now, the legal battle has shifted to competing motions over witness anonymity, evidence disclosure, and the very validity of the charges. The court’s rulings on these preliminary issues will shape the course of a trial that is already being viewed as a landmark test of how Nigeria handles allegations of high‑level security breaches.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments