The ongoing trial of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai took a dramatic turn on Monday, as a key prosecution witness confirmed the authenticity of the ex-governor's controversial television interview regarding the alleged interception of the National Security Adviser's phone call.
The high-profile trial, being heard before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, centers on charges of treason and breach of national security filed by the Department of State Services (DSS) against El-Rufai .
Adeyanju Testifies as Second Prosecution Witness
On Monday, human rights activist and lawyer Deji Adeyanju was called as the second prosecution witness . Mr Adeyanju was subpoenaed to testify regarding his presence at the Arise Television programme on 13 February, where El-Rufai made the statements that now form the basis of the charges .
During his testimony, the court played the 43-minute interview recording in which El-Rufai allegedly claimed that someone had wiretapped a conversation involving National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu and forwarded the details to him .
After viewing the video, Mr Adeyanju confirmed to the court that the recording accurately reflected what he had witnessed during the programme .
El-Rufai’s “Open Confession”
The prosecution maintains that El-Rufai’s comments during the television appearance amount to an “open confession” regarding the unlawful interception of the NSA’s communication .
The first prosecution witness, identified only as “APC” for security reasons, had previously told the court that following the broadcast, investigators interviewed NSA Ribadu, who confirmed the authenticity of the conversation in question .
The witness also stated that the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Musa Aliyu, similarly confirmed the discussion .
During Monday's hearing, the prosecution played Adeyanju’s own interview from the same programme, as well as his statement to the DSS. Adeyanju confirmed the statement, which detailed that El-Rufai had indeed said “we listened to their calls” .
Defence Cross-Examination
Under cross-examination by El-Rufai's lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN), the defence sought to challenge the nature of the confession . The lawyer suggested that sharing a conversation heard on speakerphone would not amount to "tapping" .
The witness clarified that he believed El-Rufai had said “someone tapped the National Security Adviser’s phone call” . However, Mr Adeyanju conceded that he had appeared in court because he had been summoned, stating he had “no choice” .
The Core of the Prosecution’s Case
The DSS alleges that El-Rufai’s actions, as admitted on live television, could undermine national security .
The trial, which began in April, has seen the prosecution rely heavily on media statements as evidence. The first witness previously admitted that investigators conducted no forensic analysis, did not trace IP addresses, or obtain technical proof of the interception, but argued this was unnecessary given the NSA's confirmation of the conversation .
Despite the witness's admission that El-Rufai did not explicitly state he personally carried out the interception, the prosecution insists the former governor stood by the claim that the conversation was intercepted and forwarded to him .
Justice Abdulmalik has adjourned the trial until Tuesday (23 June) for continuation .
Tags:
News