If El-Rufai Is Right About the Wiretap, Then He Is Right About Everything — If He Isn’t, Nigeria Has a Bigger Problem

14 February, 2026

by Mohammed Bello Doka 

Nasir El-Rufai did not make one allegation. He made several — and they form a single narrative.

In his interview on Arise Television, with related remarks on BBC Hausa and other platforms, he raised the following allegations:

1. That the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, personally ordered his arrest or detention at the Nnamdi Azikiwe International Airport in Abuja.

2. That the attempt to arrest him was not by the EFCC — with whom he had prior communication — but by the DSS (Department of State Services), allegedly procured or used by the ICPC (Independent Corrupt Practices Commission), which had never formally communicated with him.

3. That he overheard or became aware — through phone interception by someone who informed him — of a conversation involving the NSA, in which Ribadu allegedly directed security operatives to arrest or detain him.

4. That the current administration under President Tinubu is using security agencies for political persecution, unlawfully deploying them against opposition figures and critics.

5. That investigations and arrests of his former aides — including his chief of staff, commissioner of finance, and others since June 2023 — are politically motivated, built on frivolous charges, and driven by the assumption that members of his administration were corrupt.

6. That the federal government may be behind efforts to include Rabiu Kwankwaso in proposed US sanctions or visa restrictions as political punishment for refusing to join the APC.

7. That the abduction or disappearance of Abubakar Idris (Dadiyata) was carried out by police officers sent from Kano State under then-Governor Abdullahi Ganduje, and not linked to his Kaduna administration, despite occurring in Kaduna.

These are not scattered accusations fired in different directions. They are connected claims. They rise or fall together.

Yet in the days since that interview, something remarkable has happened. Supporters of the government have seized upon one fragment of the narrative — the wiretap — as if it exists in isolation. Outrage has focused there. Calls for investigation have concentrated there. The rest of the allegations have been treated as background noise.

But logic does not work that way.

The wiretap claim is the most explosive, the most legally risky, and the most verifiable of all his allegations. It touches national security. It implies illegal interception. It carries potential criminal implications. It is the claim that, if false, could collapse his entire story.

And that is precisely why it cannot be separated from the rest.

If someone truly intercepted a conversation involving the National Security Adviser, then a call occurred. If that call occurred and contained directives about El-Rufai, then the alleged targeting becomes plausible. If that targeting becomes plausible, then the airport confrontation, the alleged use of the DSS through the ICPC, and the broader claims of coordinated political pressure gain credibility. The allegations form a chain: interception, conversation, directive, action.

Break the first link and the chain falls. But if the first link holds, the rest cannot be casually dismissed.

So here are the germane questions for supporters of the government:

If the wiretap allegation is serious enough to demand investigation, is the content of the alleged call not serious enough to demand scrutiny?

If El-Rufai is credible enough to prosecute for unlawful interception, is he not credible enough to be investigated when he alleges political weaponisation?

If the claim of listening to a call warrants outrage, why do the alleged directives within that call not warrant equal outrage?

If the DSS was truly deployed instead of the EFCC, and the ICPC had never formally communicated with him, should that not raise procedural questions?

If his former aides have faced investigations and arrests since June 2023, are those cases strong enough to withstand independent scrutiny, or are they political theatre?

If there are alleged efforts to push political rivals into international sanctions as punishment for defection, does that not demand transparency?

If he publicly distances himself from the Dadiyata disappearance and names actors outside his administration, should that claim not also be objectively examined?

You cannot validate the existence of a fire while dismissing the smoke.

Selective belief is not logic. It is strategy.

If El-Rufai is right about the wiretap — if someone did listen to that call — then Nigeria is staring at something deeply troubling. It would mean high-level communications were compromised. It would mean directives were allegedly discussed. It would mean that the broader narrative of coordinated action cannot be waved away as fantasy. That is not a small matter. That is institutional instability.

But let us flip the coin.

If no such interception occurred — if no such call was accessed — if no directive existed — then what are we dealing with? A former governor fabricating a national security bombshell. A public figure introducing destabilising intelligence claims into an already fragile political atmosphere. A narrative constructed at the highest level without foundation.

That, too, is deeply troubling.

In that scenario, he did not merely exaggerate. He fundamentally misled. And if that is the case, Nigeria faces a credibility crisis of a different kind.

Either way, the outcome is grave.

What cannot stand is the comfortable middle ground currently being attempted — criminalise one allegation, ignore the rest. Treat the wiretap as gospel when demanding prosecution, but treat the surrounding allegations as fiction when accountability is suggested.

That is the double standard.

You cannot say, “He is serious enough to jail,” and in the same breath say, “He is unserious enough to ignore.”

You cannot demand investigation into the interception while resisting investigation into the alleged directive.

You cannot selectively elevate and selectively dismiss from the same speech.

Consistency is not a partisan demand. It is a democratic requirement.

If the wiretap is true, investigate everything. Investigate the interception. Investigate the directive. Investigate the alleged airport incident. Investigate the claims of political pressure. Follow the chain wherever it leads.

If the wiretap is false, confront the fabrication fully. Address the reckless escalation. Hold accountable anyone who introduced destabilising claims into the public space.

But do not cherry-pick truth to fit convenience.

Nigeria is not served by selective outrage. It is not strengthened by strategic deafness. It cannot afford intellectual inconsistency at a time when trust in institutions is already fragile.

El-Rufai’s allegations present the country with a binary test. Either the institutions are facing a structural crisis — or political discourse has entered a dangerous theatre of fabrication.

There is no comfortable escape from that dilemma.

If he is right about the wiretap, then he is right about everything.

If he isn’t, Nigeria has a bigger problem.

Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]