Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, files a N2 billion suit before the Federal High Court, asking the court to quash criminal charges instituted against him by the Department of State Services (DSS), describing the action as an abuse of power and court process.
According to Mediaplusng.com, El-Rufai challenges the legality and competence of Charge Number FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026, arguing that the allegations brought against him fail to disclose any offence recognised under Nigerian law.
In a statement issued by his media adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, the former governor confirms that he files a motion on notice seeking an order of the court to strike out the charge in its entirety. He maintains that the prosecution lacks legal foundation and violates constitutional safeguards.
Mediaplusng.com reports that the matter is scheduled for hearing on February 25, 2026, before Justice Joyce Abdulmalik of the Federal High Court, where both parties are expected to present arguments on the preliminary objections raised.
In his application, El-Rufai asks the court to declare the charge incompetent and legally defective. He contends that the case discloses no prima facie offence and constitutes what he terms a gross abuse of the criminal justice process.
According to Mediaplusng.com, among the reliefs sought by the former governor are an order quashing the charge completely, an order discharging him on the basis that no prima facie case is established, and an award of N2 billion in costs against the DSS for alleged misuse of prosecutorial powers.
Court filings indicate that the motion lists 17 grounds upon which the dismissal is sought. These include arguments bordering on constitutional invalidity, alleged lack of prosecutorial competence, absence of credible evidence, and claims that the action amounts to political persecution.
The application further argues that the prosecution violates several constitutional provisions, including the presumption of innocence, protection against self-incrimination, and the principle that criminal offences must be clearly defined in written law.
El-Rufai’s legal team also raises concerns regarding alleged infringement of freedoms of expression and association, asserting that the charges undermine rights guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
Documents before the court show that the Director-General of the DSS is formally notified of the application, with details of counsel representing the former governor duly served in accordance with procedural rules.
Legal analysts note that the outcome of the February 25 hearing could determine whether the charges proceed to full trial or are struck out at a preliminary stage. If the court finds merit in the objections, it may halt further prosecution.
The case adds to a series of legal battles involving high-profile political figures and security agencies, highlighting ongoing debates about prosecutorial discretion, abuse of process, and constitutional protections within Nigeria’s criminal justice system.
As the hearing date approaches, attention focuses on how the Federal High Court will interpret the arguments presented, particularly regarding alleged procedural defects and constitutional safeguards.
The decision is expected to clarify the scope of prosecutorial authority and the threshold required for sustaining criminal charges against public office holders and political actors in Nigeria.
