Wiretapping: El-Rufai Pleads Not Guilty, Faces Fresh Charges
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 interfering 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.
