FG Sues El-Rufai Over Claim That Nuhu Ribadu’s Phone Lines Were Tapped
The Federal Government has filed a lawsuit against former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai following his remarks on national television alleging that the phone lines of Nigeria’s National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, were tapped by unknown persons.
El-Rufai made the claim during a televised interview, where he suggested that surveillance had been carried out on Ribadu’s communication lines. His comments quickly drew public attention and sparked debate about possible illegal monitoring of top government officials.
In response, the Federal Government described the statement as false and harmful, insisting that it could undermine public confidence in national security institutions. Government lawyers subsequently filed a suit seeking a public retraction and apology, as well as damages for what they described as defamatory and reckless claims.
According to court documents, the government argued that El-Rufai’s comments were not supported by evidence and amounted to spreading unverified information capable of damaging the reputation of the National Security Adviser and the credibility of security agencies.
A government source said the decision to go to court was taken to discourage what it called “irresponsible public statements” on sensitive national security matters.
“El-Rufai’s remarks were made on a national platform and created the impression that illegal surveillance of senior officials was taking place,” the source said. “Such claims require proof, and none was presented.”
The suit reportedly asks the court to compel the former governor to withdraw the statement and issue a formal apology on the same platform where the allegation was made. It also seeks monetary compensation for reputational damage.
El-Rufai has not yet issued an official response to the lawsuit. However, close associates said he stood by his comments and would respond through legal channels.
Political analysts say the case highlights growing tensions between the federal authorities and some outspoken former officials. They also noted that the issue raises wider questions about freedom of speech, accountability, and how sensitive security matters should be discussed in public.
Civil society groups have called for transparency, urging both parties to allow the courts to determine whether the claim was factual or defamatory. They also appealed for restraint in public commentary on security issues.
The case is expected to be heard in the coming weeks, with legal observers closely watching how the court will balance the right to free expression against the need to protect national security institutions from unsubstantiated allegations.
Further updates are expected as proceedings begin and both sides present their arguments in court.
About the Author
