The Department of State Services (DSS) has arraigned former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, on a revised five-count charge bordering on alleged national security breaches.
El-Rufai was brought before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, where he pleaded not guilty to all charges.
At the hearing, counsel to the DSS, Oluwole Aladedoye (SAN), informed the court that the matter was slated for the defendant to enter his plea but disclosed that a further amended five-count charge had been filed on April 13. He subsequently applied for the new charge to replace the earlier three-count charge.
Defence counsel, Oluwole Iyamu (SAN), confirmed receipt of the amended charge and did not oppose its substitution. The court then struck out the initial charge and replaced it with the new amended 5-count charge.
Following the reading of the charges, El-Rufai maintained his not guilty plea. The prosecution requested three consecutive trial dates, but the defence objected, citing potential difficulty in accessing the defendant, who is currently in the custody of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC).
The defence also reminded the court of a pending bail application filed on February 17. Although a supporting affidavit was initially missing from the court file, proceedings resumed after it was located. The DSS stated it did not oppose the bail request.
During the session, the prosecution applied for an order to protect the identities of two witnesses expected to testify.
The DSS requested that:
- The identities of the witnesses should not appear in public court records.
- Pseudonyms should be used during the trial.
The prosecution argued that the witnesses and their families could face potential threats from individuals sympathetic to El-Rufai.
However, the defence opposed the request, insisting it is the constitutional right of an accused person to know his accusers. They further argued there was no evidence suggesting El-Rufai posed any threat or commanded a following capable of endangering witnesses.
The defence warned that granting anonymity could prejudice the case and maintained that the former governor has a long-standing record of public service.
Additionally, the defence sought an order compelling the prosecution to provide proof of evidence to aid trial preparation, but the prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the requested materials were not part of its filed processes.
The defence also filed a motion to quash the charge, though legal arguments were raised that such an application may not be valid after a plea has already been entered.
Both sides presented written submissions, with the prosecution urging the court to dismiss the application, while the defence responded on points of law.
Discover more from LN247
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
