The Department of State Services (DSS) has scheduled February 25 for the arraignment of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, before the Federal High Court in Abuja over allegations bordering on cybercrime and breach of national security.
The matter, assigned by the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court to Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, represents one of the most consequential intersections of political speech, cyber regulation and national security enforcement in Nigeria’s evolving digital legal framework.
The Charges at a Glance
The DSS filed a three-count criminal charge (FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026) against el-Rufai alleging violations under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act 2024 and the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The prosecution contends that:
- The Nasir el-Rufai, a former governor, admitted during a televised interview that he and associates unlawfully intercepted communications belonging to the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
- He allegedly acknowledged knowledge of individuals involved in unlawful interception without reporting them to authorities.
- The alleged interception of telecommunications systems compromised public safety and national security.
The charges reference:
- Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024
- Section 27(b) of the same Act
- Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003
The former governor has previously claimed, during a live interview, that he overheard directives relating to his detention — remarks that now form part of the evidentiary foundation of the prosecution’s case.
Parallel to this proceeding, the former governor has also faced detention by the EFCC over corruption-related allegations and is reportedly in the custody of the ICPC in connection with ongoing investigations.
The Legal Gravity of the Case
This case is not merely about one individual. It is a stress test for Nigeria’s cyber jurisprudence.
Three key legal questions emerge:
- What constitutes “admission” in media interviews under cybercrime statutes?
- How broadly can national security be interpreted in digital interception cases?
- What threshold of evidence is required to prove unlawful interception under Nigerian law?
Under Nigerian law, telecommunications interception without lawful authority is a grave offence. However, prosecution must establish both the act and the requisite intent — particularly where statements were made during media engagement.
The court will likely examine:
- Whether the alleged statements amount to self-incrimination.
- Whether there is independent technical evidence of interception.
- Whether the alleged conduct meets statutory thresholds for national security compromise.
Security–Governance Tension in the Digital Era
Nigeria’s 2024 amendments to the Cybercrimes Act expanded enforcement powers and stiffened penalties for digital offences, including unlawful interception, misinformation and cyber-enabled threats.
However, enforcement actions against politically exposed persons introduce additional constitutional considerations, including:
- Freedom of expression
- Due process protections
- Separation of investigative and prosecutorial authority
This case therefore sits at the crossroads of:
- Cyber regulation
- Political accountability
- National security doctrine
- Institutional credibility
BRANDECONOMY Insight
The real significance of the e-Rufai case lies beyond courtroom drama.
Nigeria is transitioning from an analog political system to a digitally regulated governance environment. In that transition, three imperatives collide:
- State security protection
- Digital accountability
- Democratic freedoms
If managed transparently and lawfully, this prosecution could reinforce the credibility of Nigeria’s cyber laws and signal that digital infractions carry consequences regardless of political stature.
If mishandled, it risks being interpreted as selective enforcement, undermining investor confidence in institutional neutrality.
For global investors, cybersecurity enforcement signals regulatory seriousness. For civil society, it tests judicial independence. For policymakers, it clarifies the operational boundaries of the Cybercrimes Act 2024.
This case will help define how Nigeria balances power, speech and security in its digital economy era.
Forward Outlook
The February 25 arraignment will likely trigger:
- Preliminary objections on jurisdiction and admissibility.
- Arguments around constitutional rights and media speech.
- Judicial interpretation of the expanded Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024.
Longer term, the case may:
- Influence how public officials engage with media on sensitive security matters.
- Shape compliance culture within telecom and cybersecurity sectors.
- Define precedents on digital interception liability.
Regardless of outcome, the trial will contribute materially to Nigeria’s emerging body of cyber jurisprudence.
