The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a no-case submission filed by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai in his trial over the alleged unlawful interception of telephone communications involving National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu. The ruling means the former governor must now decide whether to present a defence against the prosecution's allegations, after failing to secure the termination of the case at the close of the prosecution's evidence.
Delivering the ruling on Monday, October 26, 2026, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik held that the Department of State Services (DSS) had presented sufficient evidence to require El-Rufai to answer the charges if he chooses to do so. The court rejected his application for discharge at that stage of proceedings and adjourned the trial until November 25, 2026, for the defence.
El-Rufai, who governed Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023, is facing an amended five-count charge relating to the alleged unlawful interception of Ribadu's telephone communications and associated offences. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The ruling followed arguments over whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish a case requiring the former governor to respond.
El-Rufai's legal team had argued that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case against him and that he should be discharged without being required to enter a defence.
The DSS opposed the application, maintaining that the testimony of its witnesses and the documentary evidence before the court justified continuing the trial.
Justice Abdulmalik agreed with the prosecution that the evidence was sufficient for the case to proceed beyond the no-case submission stage.
The decision does not establish that El-Rufai unlawfully intercepted Ribadu's telephone communications. It means the court has determined that the prosecution presented enough evidence to warrant consideration of the defence before a final decision is reached.
A no-case submission is a procedure through which a defendant asks a court to terminate a criminal trial after the prosecution closes its case, arguing that the evidence presented is insufficient to require a defence.
Where such an application succeeds, the defendant may be discharged without proceeding to the defence stage. Where it fails, the trial continues, and the defendant has an opportunity to challenge the allegations through evidence and legal arguments.
In El-Rufai's case, the prosecution had called two witnesses before announcing the conclusion of its evidence.
One witness was an operative of the DSS who testified about the monitoring and preservation of a television interview involving the former governor.
The second was human rights lawyer Deji Adeyanju, who appeared as a subpoenaed witness and gave evidence concerning statements made during the interview.
The prosecution also presented a recording of the television programme, which was played before the court.
The proceedings arose from comments El-Rufai made during an appearance on ARISE Television's Prime Time programme in February 2026, following an attempted arrest at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja.
During the interview, the former governor alleged that Ribadu was connected to the attempt to arrest him and referred to a telephone conversation involving the national security adviser.
The prosecution subsequently relied on statements made during that interview as part of its case concerning the alleged interception of private communications.
During his testimony, Adeyanju confirmed that he had been present at the television studio when El-Rufai made the statements.
Under cross-examination, the lawyer acknowledged that although he heard El-Rufai refer to listening to telephone conversations, he did not hear the former governor expressly state that he personally tapped Ribadu's telephone.
That distinction formed part of the evidence considered during the trial and is relevant to determining precisely what the former governor admitted, if anything, concerning the alleged interception.
The prosecution nevertheless maintained that the recorded interview, witness testimony and other material were sufficient to establish a case requiring El-Rufai to respond.
During arguments on the no-case submission, prosecution counsel Oluwole Aladedoye, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, drew the court's attention to Exhibit B.
Aladedoye argued that the exhibit contained material amounting to an alleged admission relating to the interception of Ribadu's telephone communications.
He maintained that the defence had failed to adequately address the significance of that evidence and urged the court to reject the application.
The defence disputed the prosecution's position, arguing that the evidence did not establish the necessary basis for requiring El-Rufai to answer the allegations.
At the September 22 hearing, the court heard arguments from both sides before reserving its ruling until October 26.
Monday's decision resolved that preliminary issue in favour of continuing the trial, without determining the former governor's criminal responsibility.
The charges arise under Nigerian legislation governing communications and cyber-related offences, including provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 and the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The prosecution's allegations concern the legality of obtaining or accessing telephone communications without the necessary authorisation.
However, the legal issues before the court extend beyond whether a conversation was intercepted. They also concern whether the prosecution can establish the defendant's involvement in any unlawful activity through admissible evidence.
The distinction between knowledge of an intercepted conversation and personal responsibility for intercepting it remains important to the defence's challenge to the allegations.
El-Rufai's lawyers will have an opportunity to address the prosecution's evidence when the proceedings resume, should he elect to present a defence.
The court will then consider the evidence and applicable law before reaching a final determination.
The case has attracted public attention because it involves a former state governor and the serving National Security Adviser, two prominent figures in Nigeria's political and security establishment.
It also raises legal questions about the interception of private communications, the handling of electronic evidence and the standard required to sustain criminal proceedings.
Those questions remain for the court to determine through the trial process rather than through public allegations or political interpretations of the proceedings.
El-Rufai's rejection of the no-case submission should therefore not be confused with a conviction. His plea of not guilty remains in place, and the prosecution retains the burden of proving its allegations to the required criminal standard.
The next scheduled hearing on November 25 will provide the former governor with the opportunity to enter his defence as the court continues examining the allegations surrounding Ribadu's telephone communications.
📩 Stone Reporters News | 🌍 stonereportersnews.com
✉️ info@stonereportersnews.com | 📘 Facebook: Stone Reporters News | 🐦 X (Twitter): @StoneReportNew | 📸 Instagram: @stonereportersnews
Add comment
Comments