Alleged Wiretapping: Why Charges Against El-Rufai May Not Succeed

Pat Stevens/

The prosecution of former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over alleged unlawful interception of communications may face significant legal hurdles, despite his widely circulated televised remarks that appeared to acknowledge phone surveillance.

Court documents filed at the Federal High Court of Nigeria, Abuja Judicial Division, show that the Federal Government has charged El-Rufai with offences under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024, and the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

According to the charge sheet, the Federal Government alleged that on 13 February 2026, while appearing as a guest on Prime Time on Arise TV in Abuja, El-Rufai stated, “We listen to their calls,” during an interview concerning the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu. Prosecutors contend that the statement amounted to an admission of unlawful interception of communications, contrary to Section 21(1) and (2) of the Cybercrimes Act, which criminalises unauthorised interception of electronic communications.

In a separate count, the prosecution relied on another formulation from the same interview. The charge alleges that El-Rufai also said, “Someone tapped his phone and told me,” again referencing Ribadu. The government argues that this constitutes either participation in or facilitation of unlawful interception, punishable under Section 27 of the amended Act.

By framing alternative counts, prosecutors appear to have anticipated the possibility that the defence may argue that one of the statements was a slip of the tongue.

A further count alleges that by making the statements during the broadcast, the former governor published information likely to cause injury or instil fear, thereby contravening Section 132(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003.

The charges were dated February 16, 2026 and signed by M.E. Ernest, counsel to the prosecution.

Legal analysts note that the case hinges heavily on El-Rufai’s televised remarks. An extrajudicial statement, meaning a statement made outside formal court proceedings, can be admissible in evidence. It does not automatically require caution unless it is being tendered as a confessional statement made before law enforcement and its voluntariness is challenged. A televised interview is capable of constituting an admission, and the absence of caution does not by itself render such a statement inadmissible.

During the interview, El-Rufai first said, “We listen to their calls,” and later added, “Someone tapped his phone and told me,” without expressly retracting the earlier remark. This sequencing may strengthen the prosecution’s decision to rely on both formulations.

However, constitutional lawyers point out that Section 36(11) of the Constitution protects individuals from being compelled to give evidence against themselves. It does not immunise voluntary public statements. The safeguard applies against coercion, not against the legal consequences of freely given speech on national television.

Despite the apparent admissions, securing a conviction for unlawful interception requires more than words spoken on air. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that interception of communication actually occurred, that the interception was unlawful, and that the accused participated in, facilitated or conspired in the act.

A televised statement alone does not establish that any phone was in fact intercepted, nor does it automatically prove illegality or direct involvement.

Without independent oral testimony, documentary records or expert forensic evidence, a court may find that the remarks, while potentially incriminating in tone, are insufficient to ground a conviction.

Whether the prosecution can move beyond rhetoric to demonstrable proof will likely determine the fate of the charges.