The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday played the 43-minute Arise Television interview granted by former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai as activist-lawyer Deji Adeyanju testified as the second prosecution witness in the ongoing phone-tapping trial.
Adeyanju, who appeared before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik, confirmed that the video reflected what he witnessed during the 13 February programme in which El-Rufai made claims about intercepting the phone call of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu .
The State Security Service filed charges against El-Rufai in February after he claimed during the interview that he listened to a telephone conversation involving the NSA. El-Rufai had said: “Someone tapped his phone. The government listens to our calls all the time without a court order. Someone tapped his phone and told us that he gave the order” .
Adeyanju’s testimony
Led in evidence by prosecution lawyer Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN, Adeyanju recalled that on 12 February, reports emerged that El-Rufai was either going to be arrested or invited by security agencies. He said that before the television interview that led to the charges, he had publicly urged El-Rufai to present himself for investigation, insisting that the matter was not politically motivated .
Adeyanju told the court that Arise Television invited him to the programme on 13 February, the same day El-Rufai granted the interview that forms the basis of the charges.
“I went to Arise, and El-Rufai was also on the show. My segment came after his. During his interview, I listened to him speak on many issues, and I countered many of the things he said because they were not true or were half-truths,” he said.
Court plays interview
The prosecution applied for the interview recording to be played in court. The judge granted the application and the video was replayed. During the earlier proceedings on 18 May, El-Rufai was heard saying that “the government used to listen to our calls” and that “someone tapped the National Security Adviser’s phone call” and informed him about an alleged order for his arrest .
After the video was replayed, Adeyanju confirmed that it reflected what he “witnessed on 13 February.”
The prosecution also tendered Adeyanju’s own recorded interview with anchor Charles Aniagolu, alongside a certificate of compliance. The court admitted the flash drive and certificate as Exhibits H and H1.
Adeyanju’s interview played
In the video, Aniagolu asked Adeyanju whether he believed the government truly intended to arrest El-Rufai. Adeyanju said the SSS would have arrested him at the airport if that was their intention. He also referred to a claim that the ICPC was already investigating El-Rufai.
Responding to questions on whether El-Rufai had said he would honour an EFCC invitation, Adeyanju maintained that he did not believe an airport arrest was likely: “I don’t think so, knowing the kind of person that he is” .
He explained that the SSS might have only met El-Rufai at the airport because he was already on a watch list. “So once your name is there, the first thing is to confiscate the passport,” he said.
He added that no one was being persecuted, insisting that any assessment of persecution should be compared with events during El-Rufai’s time as governor. He also said El-Rufai should be investigated for alleged corruption.
He further stated in the video that “the oppressor of yesterday cannot suddenly become the hero of today,” referencing demolition of properties belonging to political opponents during El-Rufai’s tenure .
He claimed El-Rufai is “an ardent violator of human rights,” adding that he “showed no remorse” and described El-Rufai’s current situation as “karma” .
Statement to SSS
After the video ended, Adeyanju explained in court that after he granted the interview, he received information from the SSS instructing him to appear at their office. He said he complied and later “reluctantly made a statement.”
“I confirmed that El-Rufai said that someone tapped and gave him the information. I put all that into writing,” he said.
He was shown his statement, marked as Exhibit E, which he confirmed.
Cross-examination
During cross-examination, defence lawyer Paul Erokoro, SAN, asked whether Adeyanju heard El-Rufai say in the video that he tapped a phone call. Adeyanju responded that El-Rufai said “we listened to their calls” .
Responding to another question, the witness said: “If someone says a call was hacked, I will report it because I do not know how it was hacked.”
Erokoro suggested that it would not amount to tapping if a person speaks on speaker phone and others hear it. The prosecution objected to the line of questioning, but the defence relied on Section 7 of the Evidence Act.
The witness said that if he had been present when a phone conversation was played on speaker, he would not have lied about it. He said he did not know whether the NSA made calls in a way that others could hear, adding that it was not his concern.
Erokoro put it to him whether he would be surprised if the NSA was asked which of his devices was hacked and suggested the NSA may not be able to identify the device involved. Adeyanju said he had no opinion on the matter.
He added that he only appeared in court because he had been summoned and had “no choice” .
Case background
The SSS arraigned El-Rufai on 23 April on five charges alleging illegal interception of Ribadu’s phone call. He pleaded not guilty and was granted bail in the sum of N100 million .
The first prosecution witness, codenamed APC, had previously told the court that following the broadcast, investigators interviewed Ribadu who verbally confirmed that the conversation referenced by El-Rufai had indeed taken place between him and the Chairman of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission .
The witness also testified that the ICPC chairman confirmed having such a discussion with the NSA after portions of the interview were played to him .
Under cross-examination in the earlier hearing, the witness acknowledged that investigators did not examine any communication devices belonging to the NSA, obtain IP addresses or conduct forensic analysis of the alleged interception. He maintained, however, that such steps became unnecessary after the NSA reportedly confirmed the authenticity of the conversation referenced in the interview .
The witness also agreed that El-Rufai never specifically stated during the interview that he personally carried out the interception, but insisted that the former governor repeatedly stood by the claim that the conversation had been tapped and forwarded to him .
When asked whether El-Rufai could merely have been boasting during a politically charged television appearance, the witness responded that he considered El-Rufai “a person of integrity” and believed he meant what he said during the broadcast .
Adjournment
After Adeyanju’s testimony, Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case until Tuesday (23 June) for continuation of trial.
El-Rufai, once an ally of President Bola Tinubu, later became a critic of the president. Their relationship turned sour after Tinubu’s failed attempt to appoint El-Rufai as a minister, which the Senate declined to confirm, citing security concerns.
Discussion about this post