Reactions have continued to trail remarks made by former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El‑Rufai, following claims that he admitted to listening to phone conversations linked to Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, during an interview on Arise Tv.
Security analysts, legal commentators, and social media users have expressed divergent views on the implications of the statement, with some describing it as a potential criminal admission and others insisting it lacks the evidentiary strength required for prosecution.
Securitynewsalert.com observed on X-Space that one of the strongest reactions came from security analyst Bulama Bukarti, who took to his handle to insist that the former governor’s remarks amounted to an admission of wiretapping.
Bukarti said, “Those claiming that El-Rufai never said he tapped the NSA’s phone either didn’t watch the interview or are deliberately spreading a falsehood.”
He further argued, “In the interview, he clearly said, ‘We listen to their calls,’ which is the definition of wiretapping. He later said someone tapped the phone and informed him. At no point did he indicate that his first statement was a mistake.”
Bukarti maintained that even indirect involvement could carry legal consequences, adding, “Even if he or his supporters argue that the initial statement was a slip, failing to report someone who is tapping another person’s calls and benefiting from the crime is itself a crime under the Cybercrimes Act.”
Distancing himself from political affiliations, he added, “I have no personal issue with El-Rufai, nor am I a supporter of Ribadu; I have never met either of them or spoken to them by phone. But I cannot stand a politician going on national TV and admitting to committing a crime and then going scot-free just because he is in the opposition. There is no middle ground: El-Rufai is either lying or he is a criminal.”
Other commentators echoed similar sentiments, warning about the broader implications of political rhetoric. Public affairs analyst Biodun Adeyanju stated, “You are either justified by your words, or you are condemned by them. A crime not committed but confessed makes you liable in the court of law.”
He added that selective defence of political figures undermines institutions, noting, “Crime is good when it fits into our narratives and committed by our emotional allies, but punishable when it’s a perceived enemy. Institutions are higher than individuals anywhere in the world.”
Another commentator, writing under the handle No_Fake_News, suggested the statement may have been politically motivated, saying, “It seems to me that he was attempting to play mind games and unsettle those in government. Clearly an incredibly reckless and foolish thing to say.”
However, some legal commentators argued that the remarks alone may not be sufficient for conviction. A legal platform, Daily Justice, said, “Convicting El-Rufai is possible in theory but highly improbable in practice without corroborating evidence beyond the interview itself.”
The group added, “A single extrajudicial statement, especially one made in a political interview and open to interpretation, is insufficient to secure a conviction on its own. The standard of proof required in a criminal trial is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’.”
Some reactions also highlighted potential national security implications. Adeniyi Fashina suggested security agencies, including the Department of State Services andthe Defence Headquarters Nigeria, might examine the matter closely.
Fashina said, “Otherwise, he has before him to lead Nigeria to those who have been leaking government intelligence to terrorists. He said it like it’s normal, ‘not only the government has the capacity to listen to calls.”
Other observers suggested the controversy may be part of broader political calculations. One commentator alleged that the situation could be a strategic attempt to boost political relevance, stating that the saga could be aimed at strengthening El-Rufai’s influence ahead of future political contests.
Meanwhile, reports circulating online claimed that the Federal Government had filed a three-count criminal charge against the former governor at the Federal High Court, Abuja, allegedly following a petition by the Department of State Services over purported violations of the Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024. Authorities are yet to issue an official confirmation regarding the reported charges.
The controversy stems from a televised political interview in which El-Rufai allegedly made remarks suggesting that phone conversations involving senior government officials were monitored. The comments quickly generated nationwide debate over privacy rights, national security, and the legal consequences of unauthorised surveillance.
The Cybercrimes Amendment Act 2024 criminalises unlawful interception of communications and prescribes penalties for individuals found guilty of breaching digital privacy and national security regulations.
Legal experts note that while public admissions can form part of evidence in criminal cases, Nigerian law requires prosecutors to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, often through corroborating material evidence or witness testimony.
#https://securitynewsalert.com/
