The Department of State Services (DSS) on Tuesday explained before the Federal High Court in Abuja why the immediate past governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El‑Rufai was relocated to its custody.
It will be recalled that the embattled former governor was moved to the security agency’s detention facility in Abuja on Monday after he appeared before the court for the continuation of his trial for the alleged unlawful interception of the phone communications of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
The action sparked protests from his family, who insisted the move disobeyed a subsisting court order that allowed the defendant to be kept in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
At the resumed proceedings, the DSS, which is prosecuting the erstwhile governor on a five‑count charge, attributed the defendant’s relocation to what it termed the unruly conduct of some family members, whom the prosecution said had made unfounded allegations against the ICPC.
The prosecution counsel, Mr. Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN, noted that one of the defendant’s wives had, on May 15, stormed the ICPC’s detention facility with cameramen and livestreamed claims that her husband was being denied food and access to his personal physician and family members.
While accusing El-Rufai’s family of trying to use the media to incite the public against the judiciary, the DSS lawyer said the defendant’s household went on to criticise the court on camera for the conditions set for his release on bail.
Additionally, the security agency told the court that a politician, Mr. Timi Frank, had alleged that the defendant could be harmed in custody.
The defendant is currently facing multiple cases in both Abuja and Kaduna State. He pleaded not guilty to all the allegations against him.
He had, in his reaction to what he described as an attempt by operatives of the DSS to “abduct” him at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja on February 12, 2026, upon returning from Cairo, insisted that the security agency was being instigated by the ICPC, which he said had received a directive from the NSA, Ribadu, to detain him.
The former governor claimed the information got to him through someone who listened in on the NSA’s telephone conversations.
In a motion he filed to challenge his trial, El‑Rufai gave 17 reasons why the charge marked FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, which the DSS entered against him, should be quashed by the court.
Aside from his argument that the charge was incompetent and legally defective, the former governor argued that the DSS has no legal basis to elevate a “casual remark” he made during a television interview to “a confession” that he had indeed tapped the NSA’s telephone line as alleged.
He argued that the statement he made on Arise TV did not constitute a confessional statement in law, saying that for a statement to be admissible as a confession, “it must be made under caution, voluntarily, and in circumstances that satisfy the Judges’ Rules.”
El‑Rufai maintained that statements he made during his television interview were made “without any caution or warning, in a voluntary public discussion and without the protections afforded to suspects in custody.”
“A casual remark in a television programme cannot be elevated to a judicial confession,” he further argued.
However, the court declined to quash the charge and ordered the prosecution to open its case.
