The trial of citizen Nasir el-Rufai and matters arising

The unfolding trial of Nasir el-Rufai, former governor of Kaduna State, has raised troubling questions about the integrity of Nigeria’s justice system and the thin line between lawful prosecution and political persecution. While no public official should be above the law, the manner in which this case is being handled risks undermining the very foundations of constitutional democracy.

At the heart of the controversy is not merely the allegations against el-Rufai, centred on his tenure as governor of Kaduna State. Rather, the issue is with the processes deployed by state institutions against el-Rufai. From the outset, the former governor appears to have cooperated with authorities. He voluntarily honoured an invitation by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) on February 16, 2026, an action that ordinarily signals respect for the rule of law. Yet, what followed has raised more questions than answers.

After two days in EFCC custody, el-Rufai was transferred to the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC), where he remained in detention for over 30 days before being formally charged. Such prolonged detention, especially for offences widely regarded as bailable, introduces the first layer of concern. Justice delayed is often justice denied, but in this case, justice appears not only delayed but selectively applied.

The so-called “sins” of el-Rufai, as presented in the public domain, revolve around allegations of financial mismanagement, abuse of office, and decisions taken during his administration. These are serious issues that deserve scrutiny. However, they are not unique in Nigeria’s political landscape. What is curious about this case is the fact that various corruption charges against him have been separated into three separate cases in two high courts, the Federal High Court and the Kaduna State High Court, even as the charges appear to be quite similar and repetitive.

This has compelled El-Rufai to apply for bail in each. Since bail is discretionary, it is no surprise that one high court judge has granted bail to el-Rufai on reportedly stringent conditions while another high court judge has refused him bail. This judicial paradox is strange and perhaps telling. Numerous public officials facing similar or even weightier accusations have been granted bail promptly or have had their cases proceed without undue drama. The disparity in treatment feeds a growing perception that the law is being weaponised against el-Rufai, a tool not just for accountability but for settling political scores.

More alarming is the decision to bar journalists from covering the proceedings. This move directly contradicts Sections 36(3) and (4) of Nigeria’s Constitution, which guarantee public hearings and transparency in judicial processes. Courts are not theatres of secrecy; they are institutions meant to inspire public confidence through openness. By excluding the press, the authorities have inadvertently cast a shadow over the credibility of the trial itself. Transparency is not a favour granted by the state; it is a constitutional obligation.

Equally concerning is the broader implication for civil liberties. If a high-profile figure like el-Rufai (well-connected, legally represented, and politically experienced) can be subjected to prolonged detention and opaque judicial procedures, what hope remains for the ordinary Nigerian? The rule of law must not only exist; it must be seen to exist. When due process is compromised, even in one case, it sets a precedent that can be dangerously replicated.

None of this is to suggest that el-Rufai should be shielded from accountability. On the contrary, public office demands a higher standard of scrutiny. If he is guilty of any wrongdoing, the courts must establish this through a fair, transparent, and expeditious process. But justice must never be reduced to spectacle or strategy. It must remain principled, predictable, and impartial. The ideal situation is straightforward – adherence to due process, equality before the law, and full transparency. Bail conditions should be applied consistently, not selectively. Court proceedings should be open to public scrutiny, as mandated by the Constitution. Investigative and prosecutorial agencies must operate independently, free from political interference or the perception of it.

The way forward requires institutional discipline and civic vigilance. The judiciary must assert its independence by resisting any attempts (subtle or overt) to compromise its processes. Also, anti-corruption agencies must ensure that their actions are guided strictly by evidence and law, not expediency or external influence. Likewise, civil society and the media must continue to demand accountability, not just from accused individuals but from the institutions prosecuting them.

Our nation is at a critical stage where the fight against corruption must not devolve into a fight against perceived political opponents. The credibility of that fight depends not only on who is prosecuted but also on how they are prosecuted. If justice is seen as selective, it loses its moral authority.

The El-Rufai case, therefore, is, of course, about him, but it is also much bigger than him. It is a test of our commitment to the rule of law. Whether this moment becomes a turning point or a cautionary tale will depend on the choices made by those entrusted with upholding justice.