Court Rejects El-Rufai’s Request to Play Full ICPC CCTV Footage

The Federal High Court in Abuja has rejected former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai’s request for the complete footage of security cameras at the headquarters of the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) to be played in open court.

Justice Chigozie Onah, who presided over the matter on Thursday, ruled that the court would only allow selected portions of the recordings to be played. He granted both El-Rufai and the anti-corruption commission 20 minutes each to present the relevant footage.

The judge said the court could not spend hours watching the recordings, which reportedly run for more than six hours.

He also agreed with the ICPC that broadcasting the entire footage in open court could expose sensitive details about its facility and create security risks.

Justice Onah maintained that if the complete recordings had to be examined, they could be played in his chambers rather than in open court.

The ruling followed separate applications filed by El-Rufai and the commission over video evidence connected to the former governor’s allegations that his family members were denied access to him while he was in detention.

The judge also declined El-Rufai’s request to have two ICPC officials brought before the court for cross-examination.

He explained that fundamental rights enforcement cases are generally determined through affidavit evidence and that the procedure involved is different from ordinary civil proceedings.

Justice Onah further refused the other reliefs sought by the former governor in his application.

He directed both parties to select the portions of the recordings they wished to present at 1pm, noting that the court could not devote unlimited time to viewing the videos.

The matter was adjourned until November 3 at 1pm for the definite hearing of the substantive applications.

El-Rufai instituted the suit against the ICPC, its chairman, Musa Aliyu, SAN, and the Attorney-General of the Federation.

The case, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1852/2026, was filed on August 13 through his lawyer, Ubong Akpan.

The former governor is seeking N10 billion in damages over what he described as the unlawful denial of access to his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and his son, Abba El-Rufai, while he was in the commission’s custody.

In his suit, El-Rufai asked the court to declare that his fundamental rights under Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remained protected despite his detention.

He also requested orders compelling the commission to recognise and respect those rights.

The dispute over the CCTV recordings became central to the case after the ICPC submitted video evidence in response to his allegations.

In a joint counter-affidavit filed by the commission and its chairman, John Uche, a Chief Anti-Corruption Assistant in the ICPC’s Internal Security Support Unit, disputed several claims made by the former governor.

Uche stated that El-Rufai was being held under an order issued by the Federal High Court in Kaduna in charge number FHC/KD/73C/2025.

He also maintained that the commission had acted within the limits of its security responsibilities when it restricted access to the former governor.

According to the officer, the ICPC facilitated a visit by El-Rufai’s personal physician on July 7 in compliance with a court order.

He said the visit was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s wife, Asabe.

However, Uche alleged that the hospital visit was subsequently turned into a political meeting, contrary to the commission’s security protocols.

He said the incident raised concerns about the adequacy of the existing access arrangements and prompted the commission to introduce temporary restrictions while reviewing its security procedures.

Uche also gave an account of an incident involving Abba El-Rufai, who reportedly visited the commission’s premises on July 7 to see his father.

The officer alleged that Abba was prevented from entering the building before lying in a gutter and repeatedly rubbing his leg against its edge.

He said the commission had CCTV cameras installed at strategic locations around its premises to monitor activities and maintain security.

Uche further claimed that the recordings had remained accurate and had not been altered or tampered with during the period in question.

He also alleged that Asabe entered the commission’s premises after official visiting hours on Saturday, July 4, at about 7:35pm, with the assistance of some ICPC officers.

According to him, the officers involved were facing disciplinary action.

The commission subsequently suspended Asabe’s visiting access, citing what it described as repeated violations of its access control procedures and the need to complete a security review.

The ICPC and its chairman later filed an application seeking permission to play selected portions of the CCTV footage before the court.

They argued that the recordings were important to resolving the conflicting accounts presented by both sides.

In an affidavit supporting the application, David Efut, a litigation officer in the commission’s Legal Services Department, said a USB storage device containing three CCTV recordings had been attached to the commission’s counter-affidavit as Exhibit ICPC B.

The commission identified the relevant portions under three descriptions: “The Scuffle,” “The Son Being Taken Away,” and “Unauthorized Entry.”

Efut argued that the recordings would help the court establish the sequence of events, identify the individuals present and assess their conduct during the incidents in dispute.

He also requested permission to use suitable computer and audio-visual equipment to display the footage.

El-Rufai, however, challenged the commission’s decision to submit only selected clips.

In a separate motion filed on September 9, he asked the court to order the production of the complete, unedited recordings covering the relevant dates.

His request included footage from June 7, between about 7pm and 11pm, which he said would show his arrival and his wife’s visit later that evening.

He also sought the recordings from July 4, between about 6pm and 9pm, when the commission alleged that Asabe entered its premises without authorisation.

The former governor further demanded the continuous footage from July 7, between noon and 6pm, rather than the three extracts submitted by the ICPC.

He also asked the court to compel the commission to produce visitor registers, entry and exit records, and other documents relating to visits by his wife and other family members from June 7, 2026, until the date of the order.

El-Rufai wanted Sadiq Baba, who certified the CCTV exhibit, and Uche, who deposed to the commission’s counter-affidavit, to appear in court for questioning.

He argued that their testimony was necessary to establish how the clips were selected, copied and certified, and whether the recordings from the other periods existed.

He also wanted them questioned about the incidents involving his son and wife.

In his application, El-Rufai claimed that the omitted portions of the July 7 footage contradicted the account presented by the commission.

“The omitted portion of July 7 at about 14:53 shows the applicant’s son being dragged, and his leg trapped in the gutter.

“The clip at about 14:54:55 shows the officer falling at a ditch. Those images contradict the account in the Counter Affidavit,” he said.

He also argued that the June 7 footage would establish whether the commission had invited his wife onto the premises during the early days of his detention.

He described the July 4 recording as the only independent means of testing the allegation that she had been smuggled into the facility.

El-Rufai further relied on Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which provides for public proceedings, and cited the Supreme Court decision in DICKSON V. SYLVA (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167 in support of his argument that video evidence could be demonstrated in open court.

He also invoked Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, asking the court to presume that any relevant recordings withheld by the commission would be unfavourable to it if produced.

The ICPC opposed the request, maintaining that releasing the complete footage in open court could expose sensitive security arrangements at its facility.

The commission argued that the court could examine the full recordings privately if it considered that necessary.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.