The trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, continued on Monday before the Federal High Court in Abuja, with the Federal Government presenting another witness in support of its case against the embattled politician.
The witness, lawyer and activist Deji Adeyanju, told the court that he was also a guest on Arise Television on February 13, the same day El-Rufai made remarks that led to the charges currently before the court.
El-Rufai, who served as Kaduna State governor between 2015 and 2023 and previously held office as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under former President Olusegun Obasanjo, is facing an amended five-count charge related to the alleged unlawful interception of the phone communications of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
The Federal Government alleges that during an appearance on Arise TV’s Prime Time programme, El-Rufai admitted knowledge of an individual who illegally intercepted the NSA’s phone conversations. The prosecution further claims that he failed to report the alleged crime to relevant authorities, an offence said to contravene provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.
During cross-examination by defence counsel, Paul Erokoro (SAN), Adeyanju stated that although he was present at the television station during the interview, he did not hear El-Rufai specifically say he personally hacked the NSA’s phone line.
According to the witness, the former governor said, “We listened to the conversations of the NSA.”
Earlier while giving evidence-in-chief, Adeyanju told the court that he knew El-Rufai as the immediate past governor of Kaduna State. He also recalled issuing a public statement after reports emerged that security operatives planned to arrest the former governor.
A subpoena compelling Adeyanju’s appearance before the court was tendered and admitted as evidence.
The court subsequently viewed a video recording of El-Rufai’s Arise Television interview. Prosecutors also tendered a flash drive containing Adeyanju’s own interview with the station on the same day, alongside a certificate of compliance. Both were admitted into evidence.
Adeyanju further revealed that he was later invited by the Department of State Services (DSS), where he was asked to provide details about events surrounding the interview.
He told investigators that El-Rufai had spoken about listening to conversations involving the NSA and claimed that another individual carried out the phone interception before passing the information to him.
Following the witness’s testimony, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik adjourned proceedings until Tuesday for continuation of the hearing.
The court had earlier granted El-Rufai bail in the sum of N100 million with one surety in like amount.
Among the conditions attached to the bail were that the surety must be a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 17 and provide a letter of attestation from the chairman of the Kaduna Traditional Council.
The court also ordered El-Rufai to surrender all his travel documents and report to DSS headquarters every last Friday of the month at 10 a.m. to sign an attendance register until the case is concluded.
Despite the bail order, the former governor remains in custody.
Reacting to what he described as an attempt by DSS operatives to abduct him at Abuja’s Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on February 12, 2026, after returning from Cairo, El-Rufai had alleged that the anti-corruption agency ICPC, acting on the instruction of the NSA, sought his detention.
He claimed the information came from an individual who had access to the NSA’s phone conversations.
In a separate application challenging the charges, El-Rufai outlined 17 reasons why the case should be struck out.
The former governor argued that the charge was legally defective and maintained that statements made during a television interview could not be treated as a confessional statement under the law.
According to him, a valid confession must be made voluntarily under caution and in accordance with established legal procedures.
He contended that comments made during a public television discussion did not satisfy those requirements and could not be elevated to the status of a judicial confession.
“A casual remark in a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” he argued.
However, the court dismissed his application, declined to quash the charges and ordered an accelerated hearing of the case.
