The Federal High Court in Abuja has dismissed a no case submission filed by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, ordering him to enter his defence in his ongoing trial over allegations that he unlawfully intercepted the telephone communications of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik delivered the ruling on Monday, October 26, holding that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require the former governor to respond to the allegations. The court subsequently adjourned proceedings until November 25, 2026, when El-Rufai is expected to open his defence if he elects to do so. The ruling represents a significant development in a case involving alleged electronic surveillance, national security and the legal protection of private communications.
The decision followed an application by El-Rufai asking the court to discharge him without requiring a defence because the prosecution had allegedly failed to establish a prima facie case. His lawyers argued that the evidence presented during the trial was insufficient to connect him with any criminal offence involving the interception of Ribadu’s telephone conversations. However, Justice Abdulmalik rejected that position, finding that the evidence was sufficient for the proceedings to continue. The decision does not mean that El-Rufai has been found guilty. It establishes only that the prosecution has presented a case requiring judicial consideration after the defendant has been given an opportunity to respond.
El-Rufai is facing an amended five-count criminal charge filed by the Department of State Services (DSS), Nigeria’s domestic intelligence agency. The allegations concern the purported unlawful interception of communications belonging to the National Security Adviser and related offences under federal legislation governing electronic communications and cybersecurity. The prosecution maintains that the former governor’s statements during a television interview provided evidence relevant to the charges. El-Rufai has contested the allegations and challenged the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The amended charges remain allegations that must be proved according to the applicable criminal standard before any conviction can be entered.
The prosecution closed its case after presenting two witnesses, including an operative of the DSS and lawyer Deji Adeyanju, who appeared following a court summons. Adeyanju testified about statements allegedly made by El-Rufai during a February 2026 television interview in which the former governor discussed the interception of Ribadu’s telephone communications. According to the prosecution, those statements were relevant to establishing whether an unlawful interception had occurred and whether El-Rufai had any involvement. The prosecution also tendered documentary evidence, including an exhibit identified during proceedings as Exhibit B. The legal significance and reliability of that material remain matters for the court to determine after considering the complete evidence.
During arguments on September 22, prosecution counsel Oluwole Aladedoye, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, opposed the no-case submission and urged the court to require El-Rufai to present his defence. Aladedoye argued that the prosecution had established sufficient evidence through its two witnesses and documentary exhibits to justify continuation of the trial. He specifically challenged the defence’s treatment of Exhibit B, which prosecutors claimed contained an admission relating to the alleged interception. The prosecution maintained that the court should consider the evidence collectively rather than dismissing the case before the defendant had an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
The defence disputed that interpretation, insisting that the evidence did not establish the essential elements of the alleged offences. Defence counsel argued that statements made during a television interview should not automatically be treated as proof that El-Rufai personally carried out an unlawful interception or participated in a criminal arrangement. The defence also questioned whether the prosecution had established a sufficient connection between the statements, the alleged interception and the charges before the court. Its application sought an order ending the proceedings at the close of the prosecution’s case. Justice Abdulmalik nevertheless ruled that the evidence crossed the threshold necessary for the defendant to be called upon to respond.
The Department of State Services brought the criminal charges against El-Rufai over the alleged interception of the National Security Adviser’s communications.
The case originated from comments El-Rufai made during an appearance on Arise Television’s Prime Time programme in February 2026. During the interview, he alleged that Ribadu’s telephone communications had been intercepted and that information obtained from a conversation indicated an instruction to security operatives concerning his possible arrest. Those remarks subsequently attracted the attention of security authorities and formed part of the basis for criminal proceedings. The controversy has generated debate about the distinction between possessing information obtained through surveillance and personally participating in an unlawful interception. Establishing the nature of any involvement, the circumstances surrounding the alleged recording and the admissibility of the relevant evidence will be important considerations as the trial continues.
The proceedings also highlight the legal significance of electronic surveillance and privacy protections in Nigeria. Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, protects the privacy of citizens, including their telephone conversations and correspondence. Nigeria’s Cybercrimes legislation also contains provisions addressing unlawful interference with electronic communications and computer systems. A relevant historical development occurred in 2015, when Nigeria enacted the Cybercrimes Act to establish a broader legal framework for investigating and prosecuting offences involving digital technology. The legislation was subsequently amended in 2024. While lawful interception may be authorised under specific legal procedures, unauthorised access to private communications can create criminal liability where the statutory elements are proved.
El-Rufai has faced several legal proceedings involving security agencies, including the Department of State Services and anticorruption authorities.
The ruling comes amid other legal proceedings involving the former Kaduna State governor. On October 19, an Abuja High Court dismissed a fundamental rights suit in which El-Rufai sought 120 million naira in damages against the DSS, the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission and the Attorney General of the Federation. The court concluded that the actions challenged in that proceeding, including investigative invitations and measures connected with his travel documents, did not establish the constitutional violations alleged. El-Rufai has also faced separate corruption and money laundering proceedings in Kaduna. Those cases involve different allegations and must be distinguished from the ongoing wiretapping trial, where criminal responsibility has not been determined.
As of October 27, 2026, the Federal High Court has fixed November 25 for El-Rufai to open his defence following the dismissal of his no-case submission. The prosecution has completed its presentation of evidence, and the trial will now move to the next stage, subject to any further applications or procedural developments. The former governor remains entitled to challenge the evidence, present witnesses where appropriate and rely on the presumption of innocence throughout the proceedings. No conviction has been entered in the wiretapping case. The next hearing will be significant in determining how El-Rufai responds to the prosecution’s allegations and whether the evidence ultimately establishes the offences charged beyond reasonable doubt.
