Former Kaduna governor admits act is 'technically illegal' but claims government does same; presidency demands investigation
A high-stakes political drama unfolded this week as former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai publicly admitted that his associates intercepted phone conversations involving National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu, revealing an alleged directive for his arrest—a confession that has triggered sharp condemnation from the presidency and demands for a thorough investigation.
In an interview on Arise Television's *Prime Time* programme Friday, El-Rufai disclosed that "someone tapped" Ribadu's phone, allowing him to listen to the NSA allegedly instructing security operatives to effect his arrest following his return to Nigeria .
'We Also Have Our Ways'
"He made the call because we listened to their calls. The government thinks they are the only ones that listen to calls but we also have our ways," El-Rufai stated, revealing the extent of surveillance capabilities available to political actors outside government .
When interviewer Charles Aniagolu noted that such interception would be illegal, the former governor acknowledged the point but offered a defense that has since drawn fierce criticism.
"Because that technically is illegal. I know, but the government does it all the time. They listen to our calls all the time without a court order. But someone tapped his phone and told us that he gave the order," El-Rufai said .
The Arrest That Wasn't
The revelation follows a dramatic incident at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on Thursday, where security operatives attempted to detain El-Rufai upon his arrival from Cairo. The former governor refused to accompany the operatives, citing the absence of a formal invitation or warrant. His international passport was allegedly "physically snatched" from an aide during the confrontation .
El-Rufai clarified that the attempted arrest was not at the behest of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, which had only formally invited him for questioning, but rather involved the Department of State Services acting on what he described as a procurement by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission .
"The ICPC has increasingly become a personal tool of Nuhu Ribadu," El-Rufai alleged. "The DSS were procured to abduct me by the ICPC… and then hand me over to them" .
Presidency Demands Accountability
The response from Aso Rock was swift and uncompromising. Temitope Ajayi, Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media and Publicity, took to X to highlight the legal implications of El-Rufai's admission.
"El-rufai admitted on a national television that someone tapped the phone of the NSA for him to listen to his conversation. When Charles Aniagolu, the interviewer, interjected that that was an illegal action, el-Rufai agreed to the illegality," Ajayi wrote.
He then issued a pointed warning: "By the time he is picked up to produce the person who illegally tapped the NSA's phone, he would say President Tinubu is a 'tyrant' and persecuting him" .
Presidential Spokesperson Bayo Onanuga went further, demanding a full-scale investigation and prosecution. "El-Rufai has confessed to wire-tapping Nigeria's NSA on TV. Does it mean that he and his collaborators have wire-tapping facilities? This should be thoroughly investigated and punishment meted out. El-Rufai is not too big to face the wrath of the law" .
Omokri: 'Callous Admission'
Former presidential aide Reno Omokri also weighed in, describing the confession as deeply troubling and raising broader questions about national security.
"Tapping a phone call without a court order is a crime. Admitting to it on live television is callous. Confessing that you were an accessory after the fact to unnamed individuals in the illegal tapping of a call is an open-and-shut case of your own culpability," Omokri posted on X .
He questioned the potential scale of such surveillance: "Who else has Mallam Nasir el-Rufai and his agents been tapping? Has he and his associates been helping terrorists and coup plotters to tap the phone calls of their intended victims?" .
Omokri also drew a connection to electoral integrity concerns, suggesting that if it is possible to intercept the communications of a National Security Adviser, then electoral technologies such as INEC's IREV portal and BVAS devices could also be vulnerable to compromise .
EFCC vs ICPC: A Distinction
Throughout his interview, El-Rufai took care to distinguish between anti-graft agencies, praising the EFCC for professionalism while sharply criticizing the ICPC.
"The EFCC had written to me while I was away, saying they wanted to have a chat with me over certain issues. And my lawyer replied that I'm not in the country and I am on my annual vacation. I told them that once I return, he'll inform them," he said .
He even extended a birthday invitation to the commission: "I told EFCC that I'll celebrate my birthday with them. My birthday is Monday, 16th February. I'll come and see them" .
The ICPC, he alleged, had taken a different approach entirely—procuring the DSS for what he characterized as an "abduction" attempt rather than a formal arrest .
What's Next
El-Rufai has committed to honoring EFCC's invitation on Monday, February 16—his birthday—while also responding to a separate letter from the ICPC. The former governor appears undeterred by the escalating political storm, framing himself as a target of what he views as politically motivated persecution .
The presidency, meanwhile, has made clear it views the wiretap admission as a serious breach of national security protocols requiring investigation and consequences. Whether this confrontation escalates into formal charges or de-escalates through backchannel interventions remains to be seen.
For now, Nigeria watches as two of its most powerful political figures—El-Rufai and Ribadu, both former anti-corruption czars in their own right—engage in a high-stakes standoff with implications far beyond personal grievances.
The question hanging over Aso Rock and the security establishment is simple: in a nation where both government and opposition claim access to surveillance capabilities, whose calls are safe—and whose are not?
Posts
0 Comments