Nigeria’s security and anti‑corruption agencies, closing ranks on El‑Rufai, have become a test of law, power, and political score‑settling in Abuja. KEHINDE ADEGOKE writes.
Nasir El-Rufai may have lost the moral high ground. But that doesn’t mean the system gets a free pass. Two powerful agencies—Nigeria’s DSS prosecuting and the ICPC detaining him—are closing in at once. His case throws a harsh spotlight on the country’s prosecutorial playbook. It raises urgent questions about fairness, due process, and institutional power.
That said, what happened in Justice Joyce Abdulmalik’s courtroom at the Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday deserves scrutiny that his guilt or innocence does not extinguish.
El-Rufai was arraigned by the Department of State Services (DSS) on a five-count amended charge of alleged breach of national security. His lawyer, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, objected to three consecutive trial dates. He told the court his client was still in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The DSS handles internal security and national security cases. The ICPC investigates corruption and related offences. The DSS is prosecuting El-Rufai, while the ICPC is detaining him. No public explanation has been given for this split in roles.
This matters, no matter what El-Rufai did or did not do. Nigeria’s prosecutorial institutions are not interchangeable. The DSS handles security and intelligence. The ICPC focuses on fighting corruption. When both agencies target one man—one detaining, one prosecuting—the setup demands public accounting.
Institutional convergence of this kind is not decided at the agency level. It is sanctioned from above.
The charge also expanded quietly. The DSS started with three counts. On April 13, ten days before the arraignment, they filed a new five-count charge. Two new counts were added. No details were shared in court. The prosecution asked to swap in the new charge.
The court agreed. No one asked what changed or why the new charges came.
El-Rufai has been waiting for bail since February 17—for over two months. On Thursday, the further affidavit supporting his bail application was not in the court file. These are procedural failures. They undermine the integrity of the process, no matter the case’s facts.
El-Rufai’s admission erases his moral high ground. But a flawed defendant does not justify a flawed prosecution.
Justice is not served just because the accused is unpopular; fair methods are essential.
The institutional architecture matters. Prosecutors must explain why two agencies with different mandates are going after one man at the same time. They must also explain why two new charges appeared ten days before the arraignment, without public notice. The public deserves these answers, regardless of who is on trial.
Guilt never justifies injustice.