The scheduled arraignment of the former Governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai, over his alleged unlawful interception of the phone communication of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, suffered a setback on Wednesday as the Department of State Services (DSS) failed to produce him for trial.

New Telegraph recalls that El-Rufai, who had earlier been arrested by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for alleged money laundering, was later transferred to the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).

While detained in the custody of the ICPC, the court gave the DSS approval to dock him on a three-count charge bordering on an alleged threat to national security.

However, when the case was called up on Wednesday, February 25, at the Federal High Court in Abuja, the court was told that the ICPC still retained the defendant in its custody.

To this end, the trial Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned the case till April 23.

Correspondingly, the former FCT Minister was also scheduled to appear before trial Justice Abdulmalik to enter his plea.

READ ALSO:

The DSS had in charge, which was endorsed by a team of five prosecutors from the Department of State Services (DSS) led by M. E. Ernest, signalled that he committed a crime with some people who are currently at large.

It alleged the defendant admitted on February 13 when he appeared as a guest on Arise TV Station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, that he aligned with others and unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the NSA, thereby committing an offence contrary to and punishable under section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

It is alleged that the defendant had, in the course of the television interview, stated that he knew and related to a certain individual who had unlawfully intercepted the NSA’s telephone communications without reporting the person to the relevant security agencies.

By failing to report the crime, El-Rufai was said to have committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment Act, 2024.

The agency equally alleged that the defendant, while acting in cahoots with others that are still at large, used technical equipment that compromised public safety, national security and instilled reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians, following the unlawful interception of the NSA’s calls.

He was accused of committing an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 131 (2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.

It will be recalled that El-Rufai, in his reaction to what he described as an attempt by operatives of the DSS to “abduct” him at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja on February 12, 2026, upon returning from Cairo, insisted that the security agency was being instigated by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which he said had received a directive from the NSA, Ribadu, to detain him.

He claimed the information got to him through someone who listened in on the NSA’s telephone conversations.

In a motion he filed to challenge his trial, El-Rufai gave 17 reasons why the charge marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, which the DSS entered against him, should be quashed by the court.

Aside from his argument that the charge was incompetent and legally defective, the former governor argued that the DSS has no legal backing to elevate a “casual remark” he made during a television interview to “a confession” that he had indeed tapped the NSA’s telephone line as alleged.

He argued that the statement he made on Arise TV did not constitute a confessional statement in law, saying for a statement to be admissible as a confession, “it must be made under caution, voluntarily, and in circumstances that satisfy the Judges’ Rules.”

El-Rufai maintained that statements he made in the course of his television interview were “without any caution or warning, in a voluntary public discussion and without the protections afforded to suspects in custody.

“A casual remark in a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” he further argued.