Nigeria’s already tense political climate has been jolted by a controversy that sits at the intersection of power, technology, and national security.
At the centre of the storm is former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who is facing criminal charges filed by the Federal Government over alleged unlawful interception of the communications of Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.
The charges, filed at the Federal High Court in Abuja, stem from comments Mr El-Rufai made during a televised interview in which he suggested that he and unnamed associates had access to the private telephone conversations of the NSA. What began as a political outburst has rapidly evolved into a legal battle with significant implications for cybersecurity governance, intelligence oversight, and the rule of law in Nigeria.
This feature examines the legal foundations of the case, the political context, the national security concerns it raises, and the deeper structural weaknesses in Nigeria’s communications architecture that the controversy has exposed.
The Interview That Sparked a Prosecution
The controversy erupted after Mr El-Rufai appeared on ARISE TV’s Prime Time programme on February 13, 2026. During the interview, he alleged that the NSA had ordered his arrest following a confrontation at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja.
Pressed by the anchor on how he knew such a directive had been issued, Mr El-Rufai responded that the call had been intercepted. He acknowledged that wiretapping was technically illegal but claimed such practices were not unusual.
Within days, the Federal Government, acting through the State Security Service (SSS), filed a three-count charge against him. The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, accuses him of: Admitting to unlawful interception of the NSA’s communications.
Associating with a person who unlawfully intercepted such communications without reporting it. Using technical systems in a manner that compromised public safety and national security.
The charges are brought under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024 and Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act, 2003. No date has yet been fixed for his arraignment.
What the Law Says
The Cybercrimes Act criminalises unlawful interception of communications without lawful authority. Section 12(1) prohibits intentional interception of electronic communications, while Section 27(b) addresses failure to report cybercrime activities.
Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act further criminalises the use of communication systems in ways that compromise public safety or national security. On paper, the legal framework is clear: unauthorised interception is an offence.
However, legal analysts say the prosecution will face evidentiary hurdles. A statement made during a television interview does not automatically constitute a legally admissible confession. Under Nigerian law, for a statement to qualify as a confessional statement, it must be voluntary and typically made under caution.
Some rights advocates have questioned whether Mr El-Rufai’s remarks amount to an admission of direct participation or merely an assertion that someone else carried out the interception and informed him.
The distinction is critical. Criminal liability would depend on proof beyond reasonable doubt that he either participated in or conspired to carry out the unlawful interception.
Political Undercurrents
The legal drama cannot be divorced from its political context. Mr El-Rufai, once a prominent member of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), has in recent months become a vocal critic of President Bola Tinubu’s administration. He was initially nominated for ministerial appointment in 2023 but was not cleared by the Senate, reportedly over security concerns.
His relationship with the presidency has since deteriorated, marked by public criticism and open disagreement.
Presidential spokesperson Bayo Onanuga described Mr El-Rufai’s remarks as a “confession” that warrants investigation, raising concerns about whether private individuals possess surveillance capabilities capable of targeting Nigeria’s top security official.
The presidency’s response framed the issue not merely as political rhetoric but as a potential national security breach.
Critics, however, argue that the timing and speed of the prosecution could reinforce perceptions of political retaliation, particularly given the broader tensions between Mr El-Rufai and the administration.
Why the NSA’s Office Matters
The Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA) occupies a uniquely sensitive position in Nigeria’s security architecture. It coordinates intelligence operations, counterterrorism strategy, and inter-agency security collaboration.
Nigeria remains engaged in protracted counterinsurgency operations against Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), alongside rising banditry and separatist violence. Intelligence integrity is therefore not theoretical—it has operational consequences.
If the communications of the NSA were compromised, the implications would extend beyond personal privacy to national defence, intelligence-sharing agreements, and operational planning.
Security analysts note that the credibility of Nigeria’s intelligence apparatus affects cooperation with foreign partners. Previous administrations have faced allegations that intelligence leaks undermined joint counterterrorism operations. The mere perception of compromised communications can strain diplomatic trust.
Cybersecurity Experts Sound the Alarm
Beyond politics, cybersecurity professionals view the controversy as symptomatic of deeper structural vulnerabilities.
Telecommunications infrastructure in Nigeria relies heavily on commercial mobile networks. While encryption standards exist, not all communications are secured end-to-end. High-level officials often use standard mobile calls, which can be susceptible to interception through sophisticated surveillance tools.
Cybersecurity analyst Toluwani Akinniyi described the revelations as a “wake-up call,” arguing that if the NSA’s communications could be accessed, it exposes systemic weaknesses.
Read also:
- Tinubu seeks Senate approval to confirm Jamila as INEC national commissioner
- Another round of nuclear talks between Iran, US begins in Geneva
- Chaos as Reps disagree over Electoral Act Amendment Bill
Experts are calling for: A comprehensive audit of telecom infrastructure; Mandatory use of encrypted communication systems for top officials; Strengthened oversight of lawful interception capabilities; and Judicial safeguards and independent auditing of surveillance powers.
Nigeria’s lawful interception framework permits security agencies to monitor communications under court authorisation. However, oversight mechanisms have long been criticised as opaque. This controversy may accelerate demands for reform.
The Question of “DSS” vs “SSS”
One legal technicality drawing attention is the naming of the prosecuting agency. The National Security Agencies Act establishes the State Security Service (SSS), though it is widely referred to as the Department of State Services (DSS).
Some legal commentators argue that the statutory name matters in criminal proceedings, particularly regarding prosecutorial authority.
While the distinction may appear semantic, defence lawyers could test procedural compliance, especially if they argue that prosecutorial powers must be clearly anchored in statute.
Free Speech or Self-Incrimination?
A core legal issue is whether statements made in a televised interview can ground criminal prosecution.
The Nigerian Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination. A defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself. However, voluntary public statements can be used as evidence if they meet admissibility standards.
The prosecution will likely rely on the recorded interview as evidence of admission. The defence, conversely, may argue that the remarks were political rhetoric rather than factual confession. Courts will ultimately determine whether the threshold for criminal culpability is met.
Public Trust and Institutional Credibility
Regardless of the case’s outcome, the episode has raised uncomfortable questions about Nigeria’s institutional robustness. If the allegation is true, it suggests that private actors can access high-level communications. If it is false, it suggests a senior political figure publicly misrepresented a national security breach. Either scenario carries reputational consequences.
Public confidence in intelligence institutions depends on perceived competence and integrity. Controversies of this nature can erode that confidence.
Comparative Perspective
In established democracies, unlawful interception of national security communications would trigger extensive investigations. The offence would not merely be political—it would be treated as espionage or cybercrime with severe penalties.
Nigeria’s legal framework mirrors global standards on paper. The challenge lies in enforcement consistency and depoliticisation. Selective prosecution undermines deterrence. Transparent, law-based prosecution strengthens it.
The Road Ahead
The Federal High Court proceedings will test several issues: Whether Mr El-Rufai’s statements constitute a prosecutable admission; Whether sufficient evidence exists beyond the interview; Whether procedural compliance meets statutory standards.
Whether the prosecution can establish conspiracy or direct involvement. For Mr El-Rufai, the stakes are legal and political. A conviction could significantly alter his political trajectory. An acquittal could reinforce his claims of political persecution. For the government, the case is a test of credibility. A poorly constructed prosecution risks backfiring.
Broader Lessons for Nigeria
Three structural lessons emerge from this saga: First, high-level communications must migrate to secure, encrypted systems. Reliance on commercial mobile infrastructure is inadequate for national security coordination.
Second, lawful interception powers require stronger oversight. Surveillance in democratic societies must operate within transparent legal boundaries.
Third, political actors must recognise the gravity of public claims involving national security. Allegations of wiretapping are not routine political talking points—they have operational and diplomatic consequences.
What began as a televised allegation has escalated into a defining test of Nigeria’s cybercrime laws, intelligence safeguards, and political maturity.
At its core, the controversy surrounding Nasir El-Rufai and Nuhu Ribadu is not merely about a phone call. It is about the resilience of institutions in a democracy grappling with security threats, technological vulnerability, and political rivalry.
The courts will determine the legal merits. But beyond the courtroom, Nigeria faces a larger question: can its security architecture withstand both internal political conflict and evolving technological risk?
The answer will shape not only this case but the integrity of its national security framework in the years ahead.
