Fresh revelations have emerged in the ongoing trial involving former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai after a Department of State Services (DSS) witness told a Federal High Court that National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu acknowledged the authenticity of a conversation allegedly obtained through wiretapping.
The testimony marks another major twist in the high-profile legal battle surrounding allegations that El-Rufai unlawfully accessed intercepted communications involving senior government officials.
According to the DSS witness, identified in court simply as “APC” for security reasons, investigators interviewed Ribadu after El-Rufai’s controversial television interview aired earlier this year.
The witness claimed Ribadu verbally confirmed that he indeed had the discussion referenced by the former governor during the broadcast.
The witness further informed the court that the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Musa Aliyu, also acknowledged participating in the conversation after portions of the alleged discussion were played to him during investigations.
El-Rufai is currently facing charges linked to alleged unlawful interception of communications involving the NSA.
The Federal Government accuses the former governor of breaching provisions of the Cybercrimes Act and the Nigerian Communications Act through comments he made during a televised interview earlier in 2026.
The controversy began after El-Rufai appeared on Arise Television and claimed that he became aware of alleged plans against him after someone intercepted a phone conversation involving Ribadu.
During the interview, the former governor suggested that governments routinely monitor communications, while also implying that the intercepted discussion had been forwarded to him by another individual.
The DSS witness told the court that investigators subsequently questioned several individuals connected to the television programme, including broadcaster Charles Aniagolu, lawyer Deji Adeyanju, and an Arise TV cameraman.
Their statements were reportedly admitted into evidence during the proceedings without objection from the defence team.
During the hearing, prosecutors reportedly tendered a flash drive containing the televised interview alongside a certificate of compliance as part of the evidence presented before the court.
The court accepted the materials after replacing an earlier faulty storage device submitted previously.
A significant aspect of the testimony emerged during cross-examination when the witness admitted that investigators did not conduct forensic analysis on communication devices linked to the alleged interception.
The witness acknowledged that no IP tracing or technical examination was carried out because investigators considered Ribadu’s confirmation sufficient regarding the authenticity of the conversation.
The witness additionally admitted that El-Rufai never directly stated during the television interview that he personally carried out the interception.
However, investigators reportedly concluded that the former governor’s comments amounted to what they described as an “open confession” concerning possession of intercepted communications.
Legal analysts say the case remains particularly sensitive because it intersects national security, political rivalry, cybercrime legislation, and privacy concerns.
Unauthorized interception of communications involving senior security officials is treated as a serious offence under Nigerian law due to its potential implications for intelligence operations and state security.
The Federal Government had earlier filed multiple charges against El-Rufai following public outrage triggered by his television remarks.
Government prosecutors accused him of admitting knowledge of illegal interception activities and failing to report those allegedly responsible.
The case has continued attracting enormous political attention because of El-Rufai’s growing role within opposition political realignments ahead of the 2027 elections.
Observers believe the proceedings may further deepen political tensions involving major national actors.
Supporters of the former governor have repeatedly argued that the prosecution is politically motivated and intended to weaken his influence within Nigeria’s opposition space.
Critics, however, insist that national security laws must apply equally regardless of political status or influence.
The controversy additionally raises broader concerns surrounding surveillance, privacy rights, and the growing sophistication of digital monitoring capabilities within modern politics.
Cases involving alleged interception of communications often generate intense public debate globally due to their implications for civil liberties and institutional accountability.
Security analysts note that intelligence gathering and communication monitoring remain highly regulated areas under both domestic and international legal frameworks.
Unauthorized access to private communications can potentially undermine trust in public institutions and national security systems.
Observers also point to the absence of forensic analysis in the prosecution’s testimony as a development that may become important during the trial’s later stages.
Digital interception cases often rely heavily on technical evidence, metadata analysis, device examination, and traceable electronic records.
The DSS witness nevertheless maintained before the court that investigators believed El-Rufai’s public statements and Ribadu’s confirmation of the discussion were sufficient grounds for prosecution.
The prosecution argued that the matter involved broader national security implications beyond ordinary political commentary.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until June 22 and June 23 for continuation of trial proceedings.
The ongoing case continues to generate nationwide reactions because of the personalities involved and the legal questions surrounding digital surveillance and political accountability.
As proceedings continue, attention will likely remain focused on the evidence presented, the defence strategy, and the broader political implications surrounding one of Nigeria’s most closely watched legal battles.