Mallam el-Rufai did not intercept any telephone communication – Narrative Force

[Press Statement] Our attention has been drawn to reports of criminal charges purportedly filed against Mallam Nasiru El-Rufai, former Governor of Kaduna State and a chieftain of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), by the Federal Government of Nigeria.

These charges appear to stem from an attempt to criminalize a public statement in which Mallam El-Rufai disclosed that an individual, who claimed to have intercepted a telephone conversation involving the National Security Adviser, Mallam Nuhu Ribadu, informed him of an alleged planned arrest and allowed him to listen to the said conversation.

Let us state the facts clearly and unequivocally.

Mallam El-Rufai did not intercept any telephone communication.

Advertisement

He did not authorize, direct, procure, finance, facilitate, or participate in any interception.

He did not conspire with anyone to tap any telephone line.

Under the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) Act and the Nigerian Communications Act, interception is a precise technical offence requiring proof of intentional and unlawful access to a communication system. Criminal liability arises only where there is credible evidence of direct participation, procurement, conspiracy, or aiding and abetting.

Mere presence when another person plays an alleged conversation, without prior knowledge, prior agreement, technical involvement, or encouragement, does not amount to interception in law.
Because presence is not participation; and exposure is not a conspiracy.

Furthermore, there has been no publicly disclosed technical investigation establishing:

That any interception of the NSA’s communication actually occurred;

That the telephone of the National Security Adviser was compromised;

The method allegedly used;

The identity of the alleged interceptor;

Or any link whatsoever between Mallam El-Rufai and such an alleged act.

Before rushing to criminal prosecution, prudence demands that the Federal Government conducts a thorough, transparent, and technically verifiable investigation and make its findings public. Criminal charges cannot precede proof of a crime.

The burden of proof rests squarely on the State, as affirmed in the locus classicus of *Woolmington v DPP.* Allegations — no matter how dramatic — are not evidence. Political discomfort is also not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

It is important to emphasize that Mallam El-Rufai’s remarks were illustrative of a broader concern: that information leakage and careless communication within government circles often undermine operational secrecy. That commentary cannot be distorted into participation in a crime.

We caution against the weaponization of criminal law to settle political irritation. Due process, not impulse, must guide state action.

We remain confident that no credible case can be sustained against Mallam Nasiru El-Rufai because none exists in law or in fact.

Alex Ter Adum, Ph.D
DDG, THE NARRATIVE FORCE