Former Kaduna State governor [Nasir El‑Rufai](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasir_El-Rufai) will be required to present his defence on 25 November 2026 at the [Federal High Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_High_Court_(Nigeria)) in Abuja after Justice [Joyce Abdulmalik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Abdulmalik) dismissed his request to be discharged, ruling that the [Department of State Services](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_State_Services) evidence on alleged illegal interception of National Security Adviser [Nuhu Ribadu](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuhu_Ribadu)’s calls is sufficient.
What are the specific charges?
El‑Rufai faces five amended counts filed by the DSS alleging that he unlawfully intercepted telephone conversations linked to the National Security Adviser. The accusations arise from comments he made during an interview on Arise TV’s Prime Time programme in February 2026, where he claimed that his phone had been wiretapped and that he heard the NSA directing security operatives to arrest him.
Why did the court reject the no‑case submission?
During the Monday hearing, the defence counsel, Senior Advocate of Nigeria Paul Erokoro, argued that the prosecution had failed to produce direct evidence tying El‑Rufai to the alleged wiretap and therefore sought a discharge and acquittal. The prosecution, represented by counsel Oluwole Aladedoye, countered that both oral testimony and documentary material presented by the Federal Government were adequate to establish a prima facie case, noting two witnesses called before the government closed its case.
Justice Abdulmalik, in her ruling, stated: “The prosecution has presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, and the applicant must therefore be given the opportunity to defend himself.” She consequently rejected the no‑case submission and ordered the former governor to open his defence on the set date.
The court adjourned the matter until 25 November to allow El‑Rufai time to prepare his defence. If he fails to appear, the court may proceed in his absence, potentially delivering a judgment based solely on the prosecution’s evidence.