By Muhammad Mamman
Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has asked a Federal High Court to dismiss charges filed against him by Nigeria’s domestic intelligence agency, arguing that the Department of State Services (DSS) lacks the legal standing to prosecute him over what he described as “casual remarks” made during a television interview.
In a suit filed before the court in Abuja, El-Rufai contended that his comments, which the DSS allegedly interpreted as an admission relating to unlawful phone-tapping, were taken out of context and did not constitute any criminal offence under Nigerian law.
The former governor maintained that the intelligence agency’s action amounts to an abuse of process and a violation of his constitutional right to freedom of expression. He urged the court to strike out the charge for want of jurisdiction and competence.
According to court documents, the DSS accused El-Rufai of making statements on live television suggesting knowledge of or involvement in unauthorised surveillance activities. The agency subsequently initiated legal proceedings, claiming the remarks raised national security concerns.
However, El-Rufai’s legal team argued that the interview in question was part of a broader political discussion and did not amount to a confession or proof of wrongdoing. They further submitted that no credible evidence had been presented to substantiate claims of illegal interception of communications.
“The defendant cannot be subjected to criminal prosecution based on speculative interpretations of political commentary made in a public discourse,” his counsel told the court.
The case has sparked debate among legal experts and political observers, with some questioning whether public commentary can form the basis of criminal liability without supporting evidence.
The Federal High Court has adjourned proceedings to a later date for hearing of preliminary objections.
The dispute adds to the mounting tensions between prominent political figures and security agencies in Nigeria, as concerns persist over the balance between national security and civil liberties.
