By Amah
Kindly share:
Fresh controversy has trailed the Federal Government’s decision to arraign former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over allegations bordering on cybercrime and the purported interception of the phone conversations of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.
The charge, filed before the Federal High Court in Abuja, stems from comments allegedly made by El-Rufai during a televised interview, in which he referenced claims that Ribadu’s communications had been intercepted. Prosecutors argue that the statements and surrounding circumstances warrant criminal scrutiny under Nigeria’s cybercrime framework.
However, human rights lawyer, Inibehe Effiong, has publicly faulted the legal foundation of the case, describing it as potentially flawed and vulnerable to judicial challenge.
In a detailed reaction shared on his social media platform, Effiong questioned both the procedural and substantive underpinnings of the prosecution. He contended that the charge sheet’s reference to the Department of State Services (DSS) raises technical concerns, noting that the enabling statute, the National Security Agencies Act, formally recognizes the State Security Service (SSS), not the DSS, as the legally established entity.
According to him, such discrepancies, though seemingly minor, could become significant in court, particularly in criminal proceedings where precision and strict compliance with statutory provisions are paramount.
Beyond the naming issue, Effiong also argued that the law does not expressly vest prosecutorial powers in the State Security Service, raising questions about the competence and authority behind the initiation of the charge.
On the substance of the allegation itself, the lawyer maintained that El-Rufai did not directly confess to intercepting the NSA’s communication. Rather, he reportedly attributed the act to a third party. Effiong further queried whether remarks made during a television interview could legally qualify as an “extrajudicial statement,” especially if not made under caution in accordance with established criminal procedure.
For a statement to be considered confessional in nature, he argued, it must meet specific legal thresholds, including being made voluntarily and under caution. Without satisfying those requirements, he suggested, the evidentiary value of such remarks could be contested.
Effiong also invoked the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, stressing that no Nigerian court can compel an accused person to provide evidence against himself. He emphasized that this safeguard remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence and would operate in El-Rufai’s favor should the matter proceed to trial.
While clarifying that he is not politically aligned with the former governor, the lawyer maintained that the integrity of the justice system must transcend partisan considerations. In his view, charges that appear procedurally defective or legally ambiguous risk undermining public confidence in the rule of law.
The case is expected to test not only the interpretation of Nigeria’s cybercrime legislation but also broader questions surrounding the powers of security agencies, prosecutorial authority, and constitutional protections for accused persons.
As proceedings unfold, legal analysts say the court’s handling of preliminary objections, particularly on issues of jurisdiction, proper parties, and admissibility of evidence, may ultimately determine whether the matter proceeds to full trial or falters at the threshold stage.
