The prosecution in the ongoing trial of former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai over his alleged intercepting of the phone conversations of the telephone line of the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, opened its case on Monday by calling a witness, who is an official of the Department of State Services (DSS).
The DSS is prosecuting El-Rufai on a five-count charge in which he is among others, accused of admitting in a television interview that he intercepted the Ribadu’s phone conversations.
The witness, whose identity was shielded, but identified as “APC” in line with an earlier ruling by the trial judge, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, told the court that the DSS uncovered Nasir El-Rufai’s involvement in the alleged phone tapping case after monitoring an interview he granted on Arise Television.
Led in evidence by the prosecuting lawyer, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), the witness admitted knowing the defendant.
He said the defendant was the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) and an ex-governor of Kaduna State and mentioned his name as Nasir El-Rufai.
The witness added: “My Lord, the service got information that the defendant would appear on Arise TV Prime Time Show.” He said operatives watched the programme and he later reported the outcome to his director.
“I told them that there was a confessional statement where the defendant said he tapped the conversation of the National Security Adviser,” he said.
The witness added that the video was later transferred to a flash drive to preserve its integrity and then kept in the case file.
He noted that his director later reported the matter to the management of the agency.
Aladedoye later applied to tender the flash drive and a certificate of compliance in evidence, an application that EL-Rufai’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro (SAN) did not oppose.
Judge Abdulmalik admitted the flash drive and certificate of compliance in evidence as Exhibits A and A1.
Shortly after they were admitted in evidence, Aladedoye applied that the video of the interview be played in the open court, an application the court granted.
The defendant, who was dressed in a blue agbada/babariga, watched the interview alongside others in court from where he sat in the dock.
The video showed the defendant answering questions from an Arise TV’s anchor, Charles Aniagolu.
In the video, Aniagolu asked him about the alleged incident at the Abuja airport the day he was returning from Egypt, and then, El-Rufai was heard narrating all that transpired on that day.
El-Rufai said:“I came out of the plane and a young man came to me and said, ‘I am SSS and they would want to meet with me in our office.’
“I asked him for a letter of invitation, and he said their boss had it in the office. I said okay.
“As I was going, I saw more people coming and surrounding me. As I moved forward, two officers came again and asked me to go to their office,” he said.
Also in the video, the defendant said he told the officers that if he did not see a letter of invitation, he would not follow them, but the officers insisted.
“I told them that even the President cannot tell me what to do,” he said.
El-Rufai also said before a passport is stamped the DSS operatives must sight it.
He added: “But, the SSS operative, who stamped my passport did not say anything.
“I said to myself that if there was any issue, the SSS official would not have stamped my passport.
“After that, they continued following me and about 50 SSS operatives tried to arrest me, but the people, who came to receive me at the airport said they would not allow them to take me.”
El-Rufai added that the operatives later demanded to see his passport, but one of his aides collected it from him and the officers snatched it from his aid.
The defendant described the use of security agencies against him as troubling, added: “They told the SSS to abduct me. EFCC had invited me before I travelled and I told them that I would return.”
El-Rufai equally said he knew Ribadu instructed the SSS to arrest him because someone tapped his phone conversation
When Aniagolu told him that the phone tapping was wrong, El-Rufai said “we listened to their calls, someone tapped the phone conversation and told us that he gave the order.
“The National Security Adviser told the SSS that I must be abducted today. When you try to take a person without a valid order, it is not an arrest, it is an abduction.”
Aniagolu then, suggested that the officers may have been trying to compel him to honour an invitation, to which El-Rufai replied by saying that there was no law requiring an invitation to be honoured the same day.
Also in the video, the defendant said he had 16 years of public service and had never taken a bribe, adding: “I have told Nigerians to come forward and prove me wrong,”
El-Rufai equally claimed in the interview that he was being persecuted for political reasons and that it was allegedly orchestrated by the Federal Government through his successors.
He further claimed that investigators had interrogated several persons without finding evidence against him and accused the administration of becoming desperate.
At a point in the interview, the defendant said in a civilised country, people are not investigated by being abducted.
He added that the case against him was linked to pressure on him to support President Bola Tinubu’s second term bid.
The defendant also said he was not afraid of scrutiny because he had documentation of his activities in office.
At a point, the audio quality of the video became poor and later stopped owing to some technical challenges, following which Aladedoye sought an adjournment for him to produce a clearer version of the recording.
Without an objection from Erokoro, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned further hearing till Tuesday, May 19.
In an earlier ruling, Justice Abdulmalik granted bail to El-Rufai at N100million with one surety in the same amount.
Justice Abdulmalik ordered that the surety must reside in either Maitama or Asokoro districts of Abuja and must deposit the original Certificate of Occupancy of a landed property at the court’s Registry.
She said the surety must be a federal civil servant not below Grade Level 17 and must provide evidence of salary payments for at least three months, authenticated by a letter from the manager of the bank within the jurisdiction of the court.
The judge further ordered the surety to depose to an affidavit of means, enter into a bail bond, and submit a recent passport photograph to the court registry.
She ordered El-Rufai is to deposit all valid international passports with the court.
Justice Abdulmalik also ordered that a verification letter from the surety’s immediate department be submitted, alongside a tax clearance certificate covering the last six months.
The judge equally ordered the defendant to report to the headquarters of the DSS every last Friday of the month by 10am to sign an attendance register pending the determination of the case.
She warned that failure to comply would lead to an automatic revocation of the bail.
Justice Abdulmalik ordered El-Rufai to submit a letter of attestation from the Chairman of the Kaduna Traditional Council.
In another ruling, the judge granted the application by the prosecution for the shielding of the identity of its witnesses who are officials of the DSS.
She ordered that the identify of the witness from the DSS should not be disclosed in any proceeding of the court and that they shall be identified with pseudonyms.
The judge in a third ruling, rejected the application by the defence that it should be furnished with all evidence the prosecution wishes to rely on.
Justice Abdulmalik held that the prosecution is statutorily not required to furnish the defence with the gamut of the evidence it seeks to rely on.
She further held that the proof of evidence already served on the defence is sufficient.
In a fourth ruling, Justice Abdulmalik dismissed an application by the defence seeking the quashing of the further amended charge and the discharge of the defendant.
She held that Section 221 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) did not permit the filing of such an application.
The judge proceeded to grant accelerated hearing in the case.