From allegation to formal prosecution
The Federal Government has escalated the controversy surrounding the alleged interception of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu’s phone communications by filing criminal charges against former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai.
According to court documents obtained on Monday, the Department of State Services (DSS) filed a three-count charge at the Federal High Court, Abuja Judicial Division.
The Federal Republic of Nigeria is listed as complainant, while Mallam Nasir El-Rufai is named as defendant.
What the charge sheet alleges
In Count One, prosecutors state that El-Rufai, on 13 February 2026, while appearing on Arise TV’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, admitted that he and unnamed “cohorts” unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the NSA.
The count cites Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024.
In Count Two, the charge alleges that El-Rufai acknowledged knowing an individual who unlawfully intercepted the NSA’s communications but failed to report the individual to relevant security agencies. This count invokes Section 27(b) of the same Act.
In Count Three, prosecutors allege that El-Rufai and others “still at large” used technical equipment or systems to compromise public safety and national security by unlawfully intercepting the NSA’s communications, contrary to Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The televised remarks at the centre
During the interview referenced in the charge sheet, El-Rufai had stated:
“Ribadu made the call because we listened to their calls.”
He also acknowledged:
“That technically is illegal. I know.”
The government’s case appears to rely heavily on these televised statements as admissions.
Cybercrime law meets national security
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024 criminalises unlawful interception of non-public transmissions and imposes penalties where communications are accessed without lawful authority.
Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003 further addresses the use of equipment that compromises public safety or national security through unlawful interception.
By invoking both statutes, prosecutors have framed the case not merely as a privacy violation, but as a potential national security breach.
A test of proof, process and precedent
At this stage, the filing of charges does not constitute a conviction. The burden now shifts to the prosecution to establish the elements of the alleged offences before the Federal High Court.
The case raises questions about evidentiary standards, the interpretation of televised admissions, and the threshold for establishing unlawful interception.
If pursued rigorously, it could set precedent on how public statements relating to intelligence activities are treated under Nigerian criminal law.
The cost of escalation
The move from allegation to prosecution has transformed what began as a televised exchange into a formal legal confrontation involving national security statutes.
The proceedings will now unfold within the court system, where political rhetoric gives way to evidentiary scrutiny.
Whatever the outcome, the case is likely to shape public understanding of the limits of surveillance, the weight of televised admissions, and the boundaries between political speech and criminal liability.
This is IDNN. Independent. Digital. Uncompromising.
