The Federal High Court in Abuja on Monday granted bail in the sum of N100 million to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, who is currently being prosecuted over allegations of illegally intercepting the phone conversations of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.

 

Delivering the ruling, Justice Joyce Abdulmalik ordered the former governor to provide a surety who must be a federal civil servant on Grade Level 17 or above.

 

The court further stated that the surety must reside in either Maitama or Asokoro in Abuja and must present the original Certificate of Occupancy for a landed property valued at not less than the bail amount.

 

In addition, the surety is required to provide proof of at least three months’ salary payments, accompanied by an authenticated letter from a bank manager operating within the court’s jurisdiction.

 

The judge also directed the surety to file an affidavit of means and submit a recent passport photograph to the court registry.

 

Other requirements include a verification letter from the surety’s department and a tax clearance certificate covering the last six months.

 

As part of the bail conditions, El-Rufai was ordered to surrender all valid international passports and was barred from travelling outside Nigeria without the court’s approval.

 

Justice Abdulmalik also instructed him to report to the headquarters of the Department of State Services (DSS) every last Friday of the month by 10 a.m. to sign an attendance register until the case is concluded.

 

The court warned that any violation of the conditions would result in an automatic cancellation of the bail.

 

Additionally, the former governor was directed to submit a letter of attestation from the chairman of the Kaduna Traditional Council, while the court ordered that the matter be heard expeditiously.

 

El-Rufai, who governed Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023 and previously served as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory during the administration of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, is facing a five-count amended charge marked FHC/ABJ/99/2026.

 

The DSS accused him of conspiring with individuals still at large to unlawfully intercept the communications of the NSA.

 

According to the agency, El-Rufai allegedly admitted during an appearance on Arise TV’s Prime Time programme on February 13 that he was aware of and associated with individuals involved in tapping Ribadu’s phone conversations.

 

The DSS argued that his comments amounted to offences under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) (Amendment) Act, 2024.

 

The agency further claimed that El-Rufai failed to report those allegedly involved in the unlawful interception to security authorities, thereby violating provisions of the same law.

 

Prosecutors also accused him of working with others still on the run to use technical devices capable of threatening national security and causing fear among Nigerians through the interception of the NSA’s communications.

 

The offence was said to contravene Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003.

 

Although the DSS initially filed a three-count charge against him, the court later approved an amended five-count charge during resumed proceedings.

 

El-Rufai is also said to be facing other legal matters in Abuja and Kaduna State.

 

Reacting to the allegations earlier, the former governor claimed DSS operatives attempted to arrest him at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on February 12, 2026, after he returned from Cairo.

 

He alleged that the DSS acted on the instruction of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which he claimed was directed by Ribadu to detain him.

 

El-Rufai maintained that the information came from someone who overheard the NSA’s phone conversations.

 

In a motion challenging the charges, the former governor listed 17 reasons why the case against him should be dismissed.

 

He argued that the charges were legally defective and insisted that the DSS lacked the authority to interpret remarks he made during a television interview as a confession.

 

According to him, his comments on Arise TV did not qualify as a confessional statement under the law because they were not made under caution or in circumstances recognised by judicial rules.

 

He further maintained that statements made during a public television discussion could not be treated as a judicial confession, stressing that they lacked the legal safeguards usually applied to suspects in custody.