A Federal High Court in Abuja has granted the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) permission to play selected portions of CCTV footage in the ₦10 billion fundamental rights suit filed by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over alleged restrictions on access to his wife and son while in custody.
Justice Chigozie Onah, ruling on separate applications by the ICPC and El-Rufai on Thursday, declined the former governor’s request for the complete recording, which runs for more than six hours, to be played in open court.
Instead, the judge granted both parties 20 minutes each to present portions of the footage, stressing that the court could not devote hours to watching the recordings.
The judge also agreed with the ICPC’s counsel, Yetunde Mosunmola, that some of the footage contained sensitive information which could expose the commission’s facility to security risks if played in full in open court.
He said that if the complete footage had to be examined, it could be played in his chambers.
Justice Onah also rejected El-Rufai’s request for two ICPC officials who deposed to affidavits in the case to be produced for cross-examination.
The judge observed that fundamental rights enforcement proceedings were sui generis and were generally determined on affidavit evidence, adding that the relief sought by the former governor could not be granted in the circumstances.
He equally declined the other reliefs sought in El-Rufai’s application.
“Both parties only have 20 minutes each to play part of the footage at 1pm in open court,” the judge ruled, fixing November 3, 2026, at 1pm for the definite hearing of the substantive applications.
Why El-Rufai Is Suing ICPC
El-Rufai instituted the suit against the ICPC, its chairman, Musa Aliyu, SAN, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, seeking ₦10 billion in damages over alleged violations of his fundamental rights.
The suit, marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1852/2026, was filed on August 13, 2026, by his lawyer, Ubong Akpan.
The former governor alleged that the commission prevented his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and his son, Abba El-Rufai, from having access to him while he was in custody.
He asked the court to declare that his fundamental rights under Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remained enforceable notwithstanding his detention.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed in opposition to the suit, the ICPC and its chairman disputed several of El-Rufai’s claims.
The affidavit, deposed to by John Uche, a Chief Anti-Corruption Assistant in the commission’s Internal Security Support Unit, stated that the former governor was being held under an order of the Federal High Court, Kaduna Judicial Division, in charge number FHC/KD/73C/2025.
Uche said the commission facilitated a visit by El-Rufai’s personal physician on July 7, 2026, in compliance with a court order. He said the visit was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s wife, Asabe.
However, the officer alleged that the hospital visit was subsequently turned into a political meeting, in breach of the commission’s security protocols.
According to him, the development exposed weaknesses in the existing access arrangements and prompted the commission to introduce temporary restrictions on non-essential visits while reviewing its security procedures.
Uche also alleged that Abba El-Rufai attempted to gain entry into the commission’s premises on July 7 but was prevented from entering. He claimed that the younger El-Rufai subsequently lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg against its edge.
The ICPC official further alleged that Asabe had been brought into the commission’s premises after official visiting hours on July 4, 2026, with the alleged connivance of some officers who were subsequently subjected to disciplinary action.
He said the commission temporarily suspended her access pending the completion of its security review and the introduction of appropriate safeguards.
These allegations are disputed issues in the case before the court.
ICPC Wants Selected Clips Played
In an application filed on August 3, 2026, the commission and its chairman asked the court for permission to demonstrate selected portions of CCTV recordings stored on a USB device attached to their counter-affidavit as Exhibit ICPC B.
The commission said the recordings were relevant to resolving disputes over the events surrounding visits by El-Rufai’s family members.
David Efut, a litigation officer in the ICPC’s Legal Services Department, said the exhibit contained three video recordings showing events material to the case.
The commission identified the clips as “The Scuffle,” “The Son Being Taken Away” and “Unauthorised Entry.”
It argued that the footage would help the court assess the sequence of events, the individuals involved and their conduct at the commission’s premises.
The ICPC also sought permission to use appropriate computer and audiovisual equipment to play the recordings.
El-Rufai Demands Complete Recordings
In a separate application filed on September 9, 2026, El-Rufai asked the court to compel the ICPC and its chairman to produce complete, unedited CCTV recordings covering the periods in dispute.
He sought footage from June 7, 2026, between about 7pm and 11pm; July 4, between about 6pm and 9pm; and July 7, between noon and 6pm.
He also asked the court to order the production of visitor registers, entry and exit records, and other contemporaneous documents relating to visits by his wife and other family members from June 7, 2026.
The former governor further sought permission to question Sadiq Baba, who certified Exhibit ICPC B, and Uche over how the clips were selected, copied and certified.
He wanted the officials to explain whether the recordings covering the specified dates existed and why the complete footage had not been produced.
El-Rufai argued that the three clips presented by the ICPC did not establish that they represented all the recordings made by the commission’s cameras.
He alleged that portions of the July 7 footage omitted from the exhibit showed his son being dragged and his leg trapped in a gutter, claiming that the images contradicted the account in the commission’s counter-affidavit.
He also argued that the June 7 recording could establish whether the ICPC had invited his wife onto its premises on the first night of his detention, while the July 4 footage was necessary to test the allegation that she had been smuggled into the facility.
The former governor contended that the officials responsible for the recordings should be available for questioning if the court was to rely on the evidence.
He also invoked Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which provides for public proceedings, and cited a Supreme Court decision which he said supported the demonstration of video evidence in open court.
Additionally, he asked the court to invoke Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, if the commission failed to produce the requested recordings and records, arguing that the court could presume that withheld evidence would be unfavourable to the party withholding it.
The ICPC opposed the request, maintaining that playing the entire footage in open court could expose sensitive security information about its facility.
It argued that if the court considered a full review necessary, the recordings should instead be played in the judge’s chambers.
The court’s latest ruling permits both sides to present selected portions of the recordings within the time allotted, while the substantive dispute over the alleged restriction of family visits remains before the court.
