Fresh controversy has erupted in Nigeria’s political and security landscape following an alleged admission by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, that he had access to information obtained through the wire-tapping of Nigeria’s National Security Adviser (NSA), Mallam Nuhu Ribadu.
The development has drawn a sharp response from the Presidency, with Presidential Spokesperson Bayo Onanuga calling for a thorough investigation into the claim and questioning its broader national security implications.
In a statement issued on Saturday, Onanuga expressed concern over what he described as an apparent confession made during a television appearance. He raised critical questions about the capacity and authority under which such surveillance may have occurred.
“El-Rufai confesses to wire-tapping Nigeria’s NSA on TV. Does it mean that he and his collaborators have wire-tapping facilities?” Onanuga stated.
He added that the matter should not be taken lightly and urged relevant authorities to act decisively.
“This should be thoroughly investigated and punishment meted out. El-Rufai is not too big to face the wrath of the law,” the statement read.
The remarks signal the possibility of further scrutiny by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, particularly given the sensitive nature of surveillance operations and the legal frameworks governing electronic interception in Nigeria.
The controversy stems from comments attributed to El-Rufai during an interview on Arise TV, where he appeared to suggest that his camp had monitored communications involving the National Security Adviser.
“Ribadu made the call because we listened to their calls. The government thinks that they’re the only ones that listen to calls. But we also have our ways. He made the call. He gave the order that they should arrest me,” El-Rufai was quoted as saying.
He reportedly went further to acknowledge that such actions could be considered unlawful.
“Because that technically is illegal. I know, but the government does it all the time. They listen to our calls all the time without a court order. But someone tapped his phone and told us that he gave the order,” he said.
If accurately reported, the remarks raise complex legal and ethical questions regarding unauthorized interception of communications, abuse of surveillance technologies, and the boundaries of political rivalry in Nigeria.
Under Nigerian law, electronic surveillance and wire-tapping are tightly regulated and typically require judicial authorization. Unauthorized interception of communications can constitute a criminal offense, particularly when it involves senior national security officials.
The matter is further complicated by earlier claims that El-Rufai was the target of a failed arrest attempt by operatives of the Department of State Services (DSS) at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja.
According to reports by SaharaReporters, security operatives allegedly attempted to arrest the former governor shortly after he arrived from Cairo, Egypt, on Thursday. The claim was first made public by his Media Adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, in a post on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account.
Adekeye stated that security agents approached El-Rufai as he disembarked from his flight and sought to take him into custody. However, details surrounding the alleged arrest attempt remain contested, and no official statement has been issued by the DSS confirming such an operation.
El-Rufai later alleged that the arrest attempt was orchestrated on the orders of the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu. He reportedly made the claim during a solidarity visit by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar.
During the visit, Atiku condemned the alleged incident, describing it as not only an embarrassment to El-Rufai but to Nigerians as a whole. The former Vice President framed the episode as symptomatic of deeper concerns about political intolerance and misuse of security agencies.
The Presidency’s latest response, however, shifts attention from the alleged arrest attempt to the implications of El-Rufai’s wire-tapping remarks. By questioning whether the former governor and his associates possess independent surveillance capabilities, Onanuga’s statement introduces a national security dimension that extends beyond political disagreement.
Analysts note that if El-Rufai’s comments were literal rather than rhetorical, they could prompt investigations into potential unlawful possession or use of interception technology. Such capabilities are typically restricted to authorized security agencies operating under statutory mandates.
At the same time, some observers suggest that the former governor’s comments may have been hyperbolic or intended to illustrate broader concerns about government surveillance practices. El-Rufai has yet to publicly respond to the Presidency’s latest remarks or clarify the context of his statements.
The unfolding situation highlights ongoing tensions within Nigeria’s political elite, particularly among figures with significant national influence. It also underscores the sensitivity of surveillance issues in an era marked by heightened concerns about privacy, security, and state power.
Civil liberties advocates argue that allegations of unlawful surveillance—whether by state actors or private individuals—should be addressed transparently and within the bounds of the law. They emphasize the importance of judicial oversight in any interception of communications, especially those involving public officials.
Meanwhile, political observers anticipate that the matter could escalate into formal investigations or legislative inquiries, depending on how authorities interpret the available evidence. The absence of a direct response from El-Rufai leaves room for further speculation.
For now, the Presidency’s call for accountability sets the stage for potential legal and political repercussions. Whether the issue evolves into a full-scale probe or dissipates as a war of words remains uncertain.
What is clear, however, is that the episode has added another layer of complexity to Nigeria’s already charged political environment, placing questions of surveillance, legality, and power squarely at the center of public discourse.
