Former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has pleaded not guilty to a five-count amended charge filed against him by the Department of State Services (DSS) over an alleged breach of national security.
El-Rufai was arraigned before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik at the Federal High Court in Abuja, where the case formally opened with arguments from both the prosecution and defence teams.
The development marks a significant moment in a case that has drawn national attention due to the high profile of the defendant and the nature of the allegations.
At the start of proceedings, counsel to the DSS, Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN, informed the court that the matter was scheduled for the defendant to take his plea.
However, he disclosed that the prosecution had filed a further amended five-count charge on April 13, 2026. He then asked the court to substitute the earlier three-count charge with the new one.
Counsel to El-Rufai, Oluwole Iyamu, SAN, confirmed that the defence had been served with the amended charge and did not oppose the request.
Following this, the court struck out the earlier three-count charge, clearing the way for the new charges to stand.
When the amended charges were read in open court, El-Rufai pleaded not guilty to all counts.
After the plea was taken, the prosecution asked the court to fix three consecutive days for the trial to proceed.
However, the defence objected to this request. Iyamu argued that such an arrangement would make it difficult for the defence team to adequately prepare, especially given that the former governor had been in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
According to him, limited access to the defendant during the proposed trial period could affect their ability to present a proper defence.
He urged the court to consider a more flexible schedule that would allow both sides enough time to prepare.
The defence also reminded the court of a bail application previously filed on February 17, 2026.
At first, the court could not find the further affidavit supporting the bail request in its records, prompting the judge to temporarily stand down the matter to allow the defence to provide the necessary documents.
When proceedings resumed, the missing document was located, and the bail application was formally considered.
In a move that surprised some observers, the DSS told the court that it did not oppose the bail request.
The judge is expected to rule on the application, which could determine whether El-Rufai remains in custody or is released pending trial.
One of the most contentious issues during the hearing was the prosecution’s request to conceal the identities of two key witnesses expected to testify in the case.
The DSS asked the court to allow the witnesses to use pseudonyms and to ensure that their real identities do not appear in public records.
According to the prosecution, the request was necessary to protect the witnesses and their families from possible attacks by individuals who might be sympathetic to the former governor.
However, the defence strongly opposed the application.
Iyamu argued that it is a fundamental right of any accused person to know the identity of those testifying against them. He maintained that granting such a request could undermine the fairness of the trial.
The defence also dismissed the prosecution’s claim that the witnesses were at risk, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that El-Rufai had any group of supporters capable of carrying out such threats.
He warned that allowing anonymous witnesses could create bias against the defendant and weaken his ability to challenge the evidence presented.
The defence team further asked the court to direct the prosecution to provide all relevant documents and evidence needed to prepare for the trial.
This request, often referred to as “proof of evidence,” is a standard legal step to ensure that the accused has full access to the materials being used against them.
However, the prosecution opposed the request, arguing that the documents sought by the defence were not part of the case file and were not necessary for the trial.
The disagreement adds another layer of complexity to the case, as both sides continue to contest procedural issues even before the trial begins fully.
In addition to the arguments raised in court, the defence disclosed that it had filed a separate application seeking to quash the charges entirely.
Although details of this application were not discussed in full during the session, it signals the defence’s intention to challenge the legal basis of the case.
If successful, such an application could lead to the dismissal of the charges without a full trial.
The charges against El-Rufai are linked to allegations of national security breaches, reportedly involving the unlawful handling of sensitive information.
While full details of the allegations have not been made public, the case is believed to be connected to issues surrounding communication security and the protection of official information.
The involvement of the DSS highlights the seriousness of the matter, as the agency is responsible for intelligence gathering and internal security in Nigeria.
The case has attracted widespread attention due to El-Rufai’s prominence in Nigerian politics. He served as governor of Kaduna State for eight years and previously held positions at the federal level.
Supporters of the former governor have described the charges as politically motivated, while others argue that the case demonstrates that no one is above the law.
As the case continues, the court is expected to rule on several pending applications, including the bail request, the witness protection application, and the defence’s motion to quash the charges.
The trial itself is likely to attract close public attention, with both sides preparing for what could be a lengthy legal battle.
For now, El-Rufai’s not guilty plea sets the stage for a full trial, where the prosecution will seek to prove its case and the defence will attempt to clear his name.
The proceedings are expected to continue in the coming weeks, as the court works through the legal arguments and prepares for the next phase of the case.