Deji Adeyanju Testifies in El‑Rufai Trial Over Alleged National Security Breach

A human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, appeared on Monday as the second prosecution witness (PW‑2) in the trial of former Kaduna State governor Nasir El‑Rufai, who faces charges of breaching national security.

Adeyanju gave evidence before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court in Abuja, being led in by Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN, counsel for the Department of State Services (DSS).

The DSS sued El‑Rufai after he claimed in a television interview that he had intercepted a telephone conversation involving the National Security Adviser, Mr Nuhu Ribadu.

El‑Rufai alleged that the conversation contained instructions for security operatives to arrest him, linking the directive to an incident at Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport on 12 February after his return from Cairo, Egypt.

When the case was called, Adeyanju entered the witness box and presented the subpoena that summoned him to testify. Aladedoye then submitted the subpoena as evidence. After El‑Rufai’s lawyer, Paul Erokoro, SAN, did not object, Justice Abdulmalik admitted the document as “Exhibit G.”

In his testimony, Adeyanju recalled that on 12 February reports emerged that El‑Rufai might be arrested or invited by security agencies. He said that before the interview that led to the charges, he had publicly urged the former governor to present himself for investigation, insisting the matter was not politically motivated.

The PW‑2 explained that the television station invited him to the programme on 13 February, the same day El‑Rufai gave the interview that formed the basis of the charges. “I went to Arise, and El‑Rufai was also on the show. My segment came after his. During his interview, I listened to him speak on many issues, and I countered many of the things he said because they were not true or were half‑truths,” he said.

Adeyanju requested the interview recording, which El‑Rufai granted for it to be played in open court. The court approved the request, and the same video that had been shown during the testimony of PW‑1 was replayed. After the video was replayed, Adeyanju confirmed that it reflected what he “witnessed on 13 February.”

The prosecution then sought to tender Adeyanju’s own recorded interview with the anchor, Charles Aniagolu, along with a certificate of compliance. The court admitted the flash drive and the certificate as “Exhibits H” and “H1” after Mr El‑Rufai’s lawyer raised no objection. The Arise TV interview with Adeyanju was also played in court.

In the video, the anchor asked Adeyanju whether he believed the government truly intended to arrest El‑Rufai. Adeyanju replied that the DSS would have arrested him at the airport if that was their intention. He also referred to a claim that the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission was already investigating El‑Rufai at the time.

When asked whether the ex‑governor had said he would honour an EFCC invitation, Adeyanju, in the video, maintained that he did not believe an airport arrest was likely. “I don’t think so, knowing the kind of person that he is,” he said. He explained that the DSS only met El‑Rufai at the airport because he was already on a watch list. “So once your name is there, the first thing is to confiscate the passport,” he said in the recording. He added that no one was being persecuted.

The witness insisted that any assessment of persecution should be compared with events during El‑Rufai’s time as governor. He also said El‑Rufai should be investigated for alleged corruption and that such investigation should precede prosecution so that “he can defend himself in court.” He further said that “the oppressor of yesterday cannot suddenly become the hero of today,” referencing the demolition of properties belonging to political opponents during El‑Rufai’s tenure. He described El‑Rufai as an ardent violator of human rights, adding that he “showed no remorse” and described El‑Rufai’s current situation as “karma.”

After the video ended, Adeyanju explained in court what transpired following his interview with the television station. He said he later received information from the DSS instructing him to appear at their office. He said he complied and later “reluctantly made a statement.” According to him, he confirmed that El‑Rufai said that someone tapped and gave him the information. “I put all that into writing,” he said. He was shown his statement, marked as “Exhibit E,” which he confirmed.

During cross‑examination, the defence lawyer, Mr Erokoro, asked whether Adeyanju heard El‑Rufai saying in the video that he tapped a phone call. The witness responded that El‑Rufai said, “We listened to their calls.” Responding to another question from Erokoro, the PW‑2 said, “If someone says a call was hacked, I will report it because I do not know how it was hacked.” The lawyer then suggested that if a person speaks on speaker phone and others hear it, it does not amount to tapping. The prosecution objected to part of the questioning, but the defence relied on Section 7 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the questions were relevant to explaining the witness’s testimony. The witness said that if he had been present when a phone conversation was played on speaker, he would not have lied about it. He said he did not know whether the NSA made calls in a way that others could hear, adding that it was not his concern. Erokoro asked the witness whether he would be surprised if the NSA were asked which of his devices was hacked and also suggested that the NSA might not be able to identify the device involved. But Adeyanju said he had no opinion on the matter. He added that he only appeared in court because he had been summoned and had “no choice.”

Judge Abdulmalik then adjourned the matter until 23 June for continuation of the trial. (NAN)