Headlines
Alleged Cybercrime: Court Denies El-Rufai Bail, Adjourns Arraignment Till April 23
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja has fixed April 23 for the arraignment of the embattled former Governor of Kaduna State, Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, in the cybercrimes and breach of Communications Act charges brought against him by the Federal government
The Federal government’s bid to arraign El-Rufai on Wednesday could not proceed due to his absence in court.
El-Rufai, who was to be docked for his plea of guilty or not guilty over his alleged complicity in cybercrimes, breach of Communications Act, was not in court when the government’s case against him was called.
Mr. Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), standing for the Department of State Security (DSS), informed the court that the former governor is still with the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related offences Commission (ICPC) for investigation.
He said that DSS has no control over the sister agency and requested an adjournment to March 23.
Counsel to El-Rufai, Oluwole Iyamu, did not oppose adjournment but vehemently demanded bail for the former governor.
He cited several authorities in support of the bail request.
The FG lawyer, however, vehemently opposed the bail request on the ground that it was premature, adding that the issue of bail can only be raised after the formal arraignment.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, after taking the arguments declined to grant the bail request, adding that her court was not yet seized of the matter.
The judge agreed that El-Rufai can apply for bail only after arraignment.
Meanwhile, the Judge has fixed April 23 for the arraignment.
The Federal government filed the charge against El-Rufai over his alleged involvement in wiretapping the telephone lines of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
In the three-count charge, marked: FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, which was filed early on Monday before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the secret police accused the former governor of breaching the Cybercrimes Prohibition Act, (2024) and the Nigerian Communications Act (2003)
Counts in the charge read: That you, Mallam Nasir El Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did admit during the interview that you and your cohorts unlawfully intercepted the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.
That you, Mallam Nasir El Rufai, adult, male, on February 13, 2026, while appearing as a guest on Arise TV station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, did state during the interview that you know and relate with certain individual, who unlawfully intercepted the Phone Communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, without reporting the said individual to relevant Security agencies and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024.
That you, Mallam Nasir El Rufai, adult, male, and other still at large, sometime in 2026, in Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this court, with others still at large did use technical equipment or systems which compromised public safety, national security and instilling reasonable apprehension of insecurity among Nigerians by unlawfully intercepting the phone communications of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, to which you admitted during an interview on February 13, 2026, on Arise TV station’s Prime Time Programme in Abuja and thereby committed an offence contrary to and punishable under Section 131(2) Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
The Supreme Court has vacated the order of the Court of Appeal which barred the recognition of David Mark as the National Chairman of the African Democratic Congress, ADC.
The apex court on Thursday held that the preservative order by the Court of Appeal was in bad faith, unnecessary, unwarranted and improper.
In a unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court, Justice Mohammed Lawal Garba held that the Court of Appeal ought not to have made such order because it was not sought by any of the parties in the matter.
The Court of Appeal had issued an order of status quo antem bellum upon which the ADC exco under David Mark was de-recognized by the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
With the vacation of the order, David Mark and the other national officers are to be recognized as ADC leaders by the electoral body.
The convention produced the Tanimu Turaki-led factional national executives of the party.
Attention has shifted to the Supreme Court, which has fixed April 30 (today) for judgment in the leadership tussle within the African Democratic Congress (ADC).
A five-member panel led by Justice Mohammed Garba will resolve the appeal filed by the David Mark-led faction concerning the authentic leadership of the party.
Also on Thursday, the court is expected to determine the leadership dispute rocking the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).
Two PDP factions—one led by Kabir Turaki and the other by the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike—are laying claim to the leadership of the party.
The Supreme Court had on April 22 reserved judgment in the ADC crisis to a date to be communicated to the parties involved in the tussle.
However, on Tuesday, the ADC formally wrote to the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, pleading for the quick delivery of judgment in the leadership tussle at the national level.
The party claimed it would suffer irreparable harm if judgment in the protracted battle was not delivered within the period allowed by the Electoral Act for fielding candidates for the 2027 general elections.
It stated in part: “Without the delivery of judgment within the next three days from the date of this letter, the ADC stands the grave and irreversible risk of being excluded from participating in the 2027 general elections.
“This would disenfranchise millions of Nigerians who have subscribed to the ideals of the ADC and deny them their constitutional right to freely associate and contest elections through a political party of their choice.”
At the April 22 hearing, Jibrin Okutepa, SAN, who represented David Mark, urged the Supreme Court to allow the appeal, arguing that the apex court had earlier, on March 21, 2025, held that “no court has jurisdiction to entertain matters bordering on the internal affairs of political parties.”
During the hearing, Okutepa urged the apex court to hold that the Federal High Court in Abuja lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
However, Robert Emukperu, SAN, who represented the first respondent, Nafiu Gombe, urged the court to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of the lower court, which held that the suit was premature.
It will be recalled that a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal dismissed Mark’s appeal, ruling that it was premature and filed without leave of the trial court.
In the PDP matter, the first appeal, marked SC/CV/164/2026, stems from a decision of Justice Peter Lifu of the Federal High Court in Abuja, who restrained the party from proceeding with its planned convention pending the determination of a suit filed by former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido.
On November 14, the court issued a final order restraining the PDP from conducting its national convention.
Justice Lifu held that Lamido was “unjustly denied” the opportunity to obtain a nomination form to contest for national chairman, in violation of the PDP constitution and internal regulations.
The Court of Appeal later upheld the decision on March 9, prompting the PDP to appeal.
The second appeal, SC/CV/166/2026, was filed by the PDP, its National Working Committee (NWC), and National Executive Committee (NEC).
It arose from a judgment delivered by Justice James Omotosho, which stopped the party from holding its Ibadan national convention.
The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, agreeing that INEC should not validate the outcome of the convention.
After hearing all arguments, the Supreme Court reserved judgment, stating that the date would be communicated to the parties.
