Nasir El-Rufai, former Kaduna state governor has pleaded not guilty to a five-count amended charge bordering on alleged unlawful interception of communications and threats to national security.
The charges were filed by the Department of State Services before the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the case was heard on Thursday.
Appearing before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, El-Rufai entered a “not guilty” plea to all counts after the amended charge was read in court.
Counsel to the DSS, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), told the court that the prosecution had filed a revised five-count charge on April 13, replacing an earlier three-count charge.
The court subsequently struck out the initial charges and proceeded with the amended version without objection from the defence.
According to the prosecution, the former governor allegedly intercepted a private telephone conversation involving Nuhu Ribadu, the national security adviser without authorisation.
The act, it argued, contravenes provisions of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Amendment Act, 2024.
One of the counts stated that El-Rufai “intentionally and without authorisation” accessed the communication, while another alleged that he used technical means that compromised public safety and national security.
Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), Defence counsel confirmed receipt of the amended charge and did not oppose its substitution. However, he raised concerns over the scheduling of trial dates, citing possible limitations in accessing his client, who is currently in custody.
The defence also drew the court’s attention to a pending bail application filed earlier in February, noting that a supporting affidavit had initially been missing from the case file but was later found during proceedings.
The DSS indicated that it did not oppose the bail request.
In a separate motion, the prosecution asked the court to allow two witnesses to testify anonymously, seeking to protect their identities due to security concerns.
The defence opposed the application, arguing that it violated the defendant’s constitutional right to know his accusers and that no credible threat had been demonstrated.
Also, the defence filed an application seeking to quash the amended charges, while urging the court to compel the prosecution to provide proof of evidence for adequate trial preparation.
The prosecution, however, dismissed both requests as lacking merit.
After listening to arguments from both sides, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the matter to May 18, 19, and 20 for further hearing.