As the legal battle involving Nasir el-Rufai, former governor of Kaduna continues, questions have persisted over why the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has not released him from custody.
To many sympathisers of the former governor, his continued stay in the ICPC custody is a violation of his human rights and also several court rulings that have granted him bail. And given the period of his trial and perhaps the bail conditions, several analysts have construed the development as a political witch hunting of El-Rufai.
These views are however, far from what is keeping the former governor in the anti-corruption agency’s custody.
A review of the various court rulings shows that El-Rufai’s continued detention is tied to judicial decisions rather than a unilateral action by the ICPC, and of course, the agency does not possess such a unilateral power to keep him.
The latest ruling, delivered by D.H. Khobo of the KadunaHigh Courtt on June 29, 2026, provides the clearest explanation. El-Rufai had applied for bail on health grounds.
But the court refused El-Rufai’s application for bail –the third in the series — anchored on claims that he was suffering from advanced prostate cancer requiring urgent treatment abroad.
Although the judge held that the fresh application was competent because it raised new medical issues that were not canvassed in the previous applications, he ruled that the former governor failed to establish exceptional circumstances that would justify his release on health grounds.
Even if his application was competent as held by the judge, a major factor in the ruling was the dispute over El-Rufai’s medical report.
His lawyers relied on a report purportedly issued by the National Hospital, Abuja, indicating that he had metastatic prostate cancer and required specialised treatment outside Nigeria.
However, ICPC produced a letter from the chief medical director (CMD) of the National Hospital, stating that the hospital had no record of the former minister as a patient and that the report was issued without the knowledge or authorisation of the hospital’s management.
The judge held that once the institution on whose authority the report was issued had formally disowned it, the document could no longer be relied upon as credible evidence. This has been in the public domain and holds water enough to prove why El-Rufai’s bail application was not granted.
The defence also presented a second medical report from Asokoro District Hospital showing that El-Rufai was receiving treatment for an eye condition. The court, however, ruled that the ailment was neither life-threatening nor shown to be beyond treatment in Nigeria. It also found no evidence that the condition posed any danger to other inmates or could not be managed while he remained in custody.
In refusing bail, the judge relied on previous decisions of the supreme court, particularly Peter Nwaobioshi v FRN (2023), which held that the mere fact that a detainee is ill does not automatically entitle him to bail.
According to the ruling, an applicant must show compelling and exceptional circumstances, including proof that the illness cannot be adequately managed while in custody.
The court accepted ICPC’s submission that the commission operates a medical facility and had been providing medical attention to El-Rufai.
It also noted that there was no evidence that the commission was unwilling or unable to take him to specialised medical facilities within Nigeria whenever necessary.
Rather than order his release, the court directed ICPC to continue granting him unrestricted access to his personal doctors and to escort him to any specialist hospital in Nigeria whenever required.
The court also took into account concerns raised by the prosecution regarding possible witness interference and the seriousness of the charges against the former governor.
It referred to public statements allegedly made by El-Rufai and held that, although they did not affect his presumption of innocence, they were relevant considerations in deciding whether to exercise discretion in his favour.
The cumulative effect of the court’s rulings is that ICPC is holding El-Rufai under valid court orders.
The courts have repeatedly declined to order his release, finding that the medical evidence relied upon by the defence was either unreliable or insufficient to warrant bail and that the prosecution’s concerns remained live issues for determination during the trial.
Unless another court grants bail or varies the existing orders, ICPC is legally bound to continue holding the former Kaduna governor in custody pending the determination of his case.
-Mahmood Rizlan, a public affairs analyst. Email:[email protected].
