Human rights lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, on Monday testified before the Federal High Court in Abuja in the ongoing trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over alleged breach of national security.
The case is being heard before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik following a suit filed by the Department of State Services (DSS).
Adeyanju appeared as the second prosecution witness (PW-2) and was led in evidence by DSS counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye, SAN.
During his testimony, he told the court that his earlier public statements and television appearance were part of discussions surrounding claims made by El-Rufai on national television.
The witness also confirmed participating in an Arise TV interview, which was played in court alongside a recorded interview of El-Rufai.
The court admitted multiple exhibits, including:
- Subpoena letter (Exhibit G)
- Flash drive containing interview recordings (Exhibit H)
- Certificate of compliance (Exhibit H1)
According to NAN, the DSS instituted the case after El-Rufai alleged in a television interview that he intercepted a telephone conversation involving the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, claiming it suggested plans to arrest him.
El-Rufai also linked the alleged incident to events at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport upon his return from Egypt.
In his statements and interview playback, Adeyanju:
- Questioned claims that El-Rufai was targeted for arrest
- Suggested security agencies would have acted directly if that was the case
- Stated that El-Rufai should face investigation over allegations of corruption
- Described the former governor as a “known violator of human rights” (as quoted in the report)
He also told the court that he was invited by the DSS and later made a statement to investigators.
Under cross-examination, El-Rufai’s counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, challenged parts of Adeyanju’s testimony, particularly on whether what El-Rufai described amounted to “tapping” or simply a conversation heard on speakerphone.
The defence argued that hearing a call on speaker does not constitute phone interception.
Adeyanju maintained that he did not personally verify how the alleged conversation occurred and said he only responded based on what was presented publicly.
Justice Abdulmalik adjourned the case until June 23, 2026, for continuation of the trial.
