The continued detention of Nasir El-Rufai, former Kaduna State governor, despite being charged with offences that are ordinarily bailable under Nigerian law, has opened a new front in the debate over the independence of the justice system, the treatment of opposition figures, and the boundary between legitimate prosecution and political persecution.
While the federal government and anti-corruption agencies insist that El-Rufai is receiving due process and fair hearing, his family, political associates and opposition parties argue that the legal process has been weaponised to keep one of the country’s most influential opposition figures out of circulation ahead of the 2027 elections.
The controversy has intensified following claims by Bolaji Abdullahi, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) spokesman, that the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) intends to keep El-Rufai in detention until after the next general election.
“What I can tell you is that the thinking within the ADC is that the APC government has concluded that they will not release Malam Nasir El-Rufai until after the elections,” Abdullahi said during a Channels Television interview.
At the centre of the dispute is not whether El-Rufai should face trial. Even opposition figures have largely acknowledged that anyone accused of criminal conduct should answer questions before the courts. Rather, the debate is whether the bail conditions imposed in multiple cases are so stringent that they effectively amount to detention by another name.
The cases against El-Rufai
El-Rufai is facing separate prosecutions in Kaduna and Abuja.
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has charged him over alleged abuse of office, fraud, money laundering and procurement-related offences arising from his tenure as governor of Kaduna State.
Among the allegations is the approval of a contract for the procurement, survey planning, final design and installation of a CCTV surveillance system in Kaduna metropolis at a revised cost of N8.68 billion.
Separately, the Department of State Services (DSS) instituted a federal case accusing him of unlawfully intercepting telephone communications involving Nuhu Ribadu, national security adviser.
The wire-tapping case arose after El-Rufai claimed during a television interview that he had listened to an intercepted conversation allegedly involving the NSA discussing plans for his arrest.
He was subsequently charged under provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and the Nigerian Communications Act relating to unlawful interception of communications, failure to report an interception and compromising national security through the use of technical equipment.
He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Read also: ADC lists six demands to Tinubu govt, says El-Rufai denied medical care
The bail controversy
The strongest argument advanced by El-Rufai’s supporters concerns the conditions attached to his bail.
In the federal case, the court granted him bail in the sum of N100 million. However, one surety must be a Grade Level 17 federal civil servant with property in either Maitama or Asokoro, two of Abuja’s most expensive districts. The surety must also provide an original certificate of occupancy alongside evidence of tax payments and salary records.
The court further ordered El-Rufai to report to the DSS every month. His lawyers sought a variation of the conditions, arguing that they were excessive and difficult to satisfy. Justice Joyce Abdulmalik declined the request, holding that qualified civil servants who meet the conditions exist.
In Kaduna, another court reportedly required two sureties with properties worth N200 million each, alongside attestation from the Kaduna State Traditional Council.
According to Asia El-Rufai, one of the former governor’s wives, efforts to fulfil the conditions encountered obstacles.
“The Traditional Council would not give that attestation,” she said during an Arise Television interview.
She also alleged that the Kaduna State Land Registry was shut during efforts to verify property documents required for the bail process. The government has not publicly accepted these claims.
Are the bail conditions unusual?
Legal practitioners note that Nigerian courts possess broad discretion in fixing bail conditions.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that bail conditions should ensure the attendance of an accused person during trial. However, courts have also warned against imposing terms so onerous that they effectively deny bail.
In practice, anti-corruption suspects are frequently granted bail upon presenting senior civil servants, businesspersons or property owners as sureties.
What makes El-Rufai’s situation unusual is not necessarily the monetary value involved but the combination of requirements. The insistence on Grade Level 17 officers with properties in specific elite districts and additional institutional attestations has fuelled claims that the conditions are exceptionally difficult to satisfy.
“Look at what is happening with my brother, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai. He is currently in custody, and the requirements for his release are incredibly difficult,” Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, the emir of Kano, recently said while speaking with journalists in Hausa.
Yet courts have historically imposed tough conditions in high-profile cases involving former governors, ministers and politically exposed persons.
Read also: El-Rufai’s wife appeals to Tinubu over ‘dehumanising’ detention
How similar cases were treated
The treatment of other high-profile defendants offers a mixed picture.
Ayodele Fayose, former Ekiti governor, who faced money laundering charges before the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), was granted bail and released after meeting court conditions despite the scale of allegations against him. He was later discharged and acquitted by the court.
Orji Uzor Kalu, former Abia governor, was granted bail during his corruption trial and remained free for much of the proceedings before his eventual conviction, which was later nullified by the Supreme Court.
Sambo Dasuki, former national security adviser, charged for alleged $2.1B arms procurement fraud during late Muhammadu Buhari’s administration spent years in detention despite multiple court orders granting him bail. Human rights groups described his case as one of the most controversial examples of prolonged pre-trial detention in Nigeria’s democratic history.
Godwin Emefiele, former Central Bank governor, under prosecution by the current administration was also held for extended periods while contesting bail conditions in multiple courts.
These precedents show that while prolonged detention despite bailable charges is not unprecedented, it has often attracted allegations of political interference and selective justice.
While there is no judicial precedent of a high-profile individual being criminally prosecuted for phone wiretapping, the offense is however bailable.
The physician’s arrest raises new questions
Questions surrounding El-Rufai’s treatment deepened after the ICPC arrested Bello Abubakar, reportedly his personal physician.
The anti-corruption agency alleged that the doctor made false statements relating to a court-approved medical visit and accused El-Rufai of receiving political associates during what was supposed to be a medical consultation.
The agency argued that such conduct violated the court’s order.
Supporters of the former governor, however, view the arrest as further evidence of an aggressive prosecutorial strategy designed to limit his political activities.
Politics in the background
Whether acknowledged or not, the political context is impossible to ignore.
El-Rufai is no ordinary defendant. Since leaving the APC and aligning with the ADC-led opposition coalition, he has become one of President Bola Tinubu’s fiercest critics.
His speeches, interviews and organisational role within the opposition have made him a key figure in preparations for the 2027 election.
That reality explains why every legal development is being interpreted through a political lens.
For ADC leaders, the timing and cumulative effect of the prosecutions suggest an effort to weaken the opposition. For the government, the argument is straightforward: criminal allegations should not disappear simply because an accused person becomes politically influential.
Is the government being fair?
The answer depends largely on which standard is applied.
On one hand, El-Rufai has been charged before competent courts, given access to lawyers and allowed to challenge the cases against him. The courts, not the executive, have formally imposed the bail conditions and adjournments. From that perspective, the government can argue that due process is being followed.
On the other hand, critics contend that due process involves more than merely filing charges. They argue that when bail conditions become exceptionally difficult to meet and multiple prosecutions proceed simultaneously against an opposition leader facing bailable offences, perceptions of political targeting become inevitable.
The upcoming proceedings in September could prove decisive. In the wire-tapping case, the DSS has already closed its case after presenting two witnesses, and El-Rufai’s lawyers are expected to file a no-case submission arguing that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case.
If the court agrees, the former governor could be discharged in that matter. If not, he will be required to open his defence while remaining entangled in multiple legal battles.
For now, the dispute remains less about whether El-Rufai should answer allegations and more about whether the criminal justice system is being applied evenly. That question is likely to remain a subject of political and legal contention as Nigeria moves closer to the 2027 elections.
Join BusinessDay whatsapp Channel, to stay up to date
Open In Whatsapp
