Inside Kaduna’s ₦423bn probe, where figures, fairness, and politics clash, KEHINDE ADEGOKE writes.
A Report That Exists — But Cannot Be Verified
Few legislative probes in Nigeria have matched the Kaduna State House of Assembly’s 2024 indictment of former Governor Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai for drama and procedural ambiguity. Headlines highlight ₦423 billion allegedly siphoned from 2015 to 2023, but a quieter, more constitutionally troubling issue lurks beneath: El-Rufai has never been officially given a certified copy of the report that justified his EFCC detention.
His legal team has tried to get the certified true copy through official means. The Assembly has refused. Still, the report was sent to the EFCC and ICPC, leading to a year-long investigation and his detention on February 17, 2026. When El-Rufai sued the Assembly, the State’s Attorney-General argued in court that the judge could not rule on the report’s legality since El-Rufai did not have a certified copy. The situation is tangled: El-Rufai cannot get the report used against him and is told he cannot contest it because he lacks the document.
The Ghost in the Accounting
If you set aside the politics, the Kaduna Assembly report centres on one figure: ₦423 billion. Yet, there is no clear paper trail. Former executive council members say the report does not explain how this amount was calculated or from which accounts it was siphoned. “The report simply announces a number and claims it is missing,” they said, describing the method as “voodoo accounting.”
Debt Discrepancy Table
The debt numbers are also inconsistent. Governor Uba Sani, at a March 2024 town hall, listed inherited debt of $587 million, ₦85 billion, and 115 contractual liabilities. The ad hoc committee’s report, in contrast, listed external debt at $758.14 million and total loans at over $2 billion. No clear public explanation exists for these differing figures.
El-Rufai’s team also pointed out that the Assembly had accepted the audited accounts for 2015 to 2022. Yet, the committee now wants the public to reject these formally recognised accounts and accept its findings instead.
The Investigator Who Was Never Neutral
There is another key issue in El-Rufai’s response: who judged the case? His former cabinet members said House Speaker Yusuf Dahiru Liman led the adoption of the report, despite being investigated by the Kaduna State Internal Revenue Service, which froze some of his accounts. He was also involved in disputes with the Kaduna Markets Authority, also under review. If these claims are true, they raise a vital question: can the report be fair if its leader had financial conflicts of interest with the agencies involved?
The Hearing That Never Happened
El-Rufai went to the Federal High Court in Kaduna. He asked the court to declare the Assembly report null and void, arguing that he was not given a fair hearing. He argued he was never given a chance to defend himself before the report was finalised. This is a serious issue. Section 36 of the Nigerian Constitution (1999, as amended) requires any group with quasi-judicial power, including legislative committees that recommend prosecution, to observe natural justice. The first rule of justice is the right to be heard.
His lawyer argued that no government agency can detain citizens without following the rules. All public institutions must obey the Constitution and follow the rule of law.
Accountability vs Weaponisation — A Line Nigeria Must Hold
This does not say El-Rufai is innocent. If even half of the ₦423 billion were proven to have been stolen, it would be one of Nigeria’s worst cases of public fund diversion. The EFCC has investigated him for a year. His detention shows the commission is now questioning him seriously. Former aides like Jafaru Sani, Jimmy Lawal, Bashir Saidu, and Samuel Aruwa are also in custody or under investigation, suggesting real forensic work is underway.
But Nigeria has been here before:
Oyo State (2006): Gov. Rashidi Ladoja’s probe overturned for procedural lapses.
House of Representatives (2012): Fuel subsidy probe reshaped discourse despite methodological disputes.
Delta State (2017): Gov. James Ibori’s case relied more on UK court documents than Assembly reports.
These past cases show the same problem. Accountability and political persecution often happen at the same time. It is hard to know which is the real driver.
Civil Society and Political Context
Civil society groups say immunity ends when a governor leaves office. They say all allegations of mismanagement must be resolved clearly. The Kaduna Concerned Citizens Forum said, “justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done.” But the outcome’s validity depends on the process’s honesty.
El-Rufai’s national ambitions and party conflicts add more complexity. Critics say the probe is meant to weaken him before 2027. Supporters argue it is a proper response to financial mismanagement. The mixing of law, politics, and personal issues makes this case an example of Nigeria’s wider governance challenges.
Conclusion
This case includes a report not given to the accused. Its accounting produces figures the government itself cannot verify. The committee’s chair also has unsolved financial disputes. These are not minor details. They form the foundation of justice—and in this case, that foundation is missing.
Accountability without due process is persecution, plain and simple. If Kaduna’s legislature cannot produce a certified copy of its report, this trial is no longer just about El-Rufai — it is a stark test of Nigeria’s commitment to constitutional justice.