Wiretap and Poison Importation: DSS Has Invited El-Rufai — But Can Ribadu Be The Judge in His Own Case?

16 February, 2026

by Mohammed Bello Doka 

Nigeria now faces a stark and undeniable conflict at the apex of its national security structure. The same National Security Adviser whose office is the subject of a toxic-chemical importation allegation is also the official who supervises the agency prosecuting the man who made that allegation. No amount of procedural dressing can change this simple fact: Nuhu Ribadu cannot be a judge in his own case.

What has unfolded between January and February 2026 is not merely a political quarrel. It is a test of whether Nigeria’s security system still recognises the foundational rule of natural justice — nemo judex in causa sua — that no one should adjudicate a matter in which they have a personal stake. By every available fact, that principle is now under strain.

A Collision of Allegation and Prosecution

On January 30 2026, former Kaduna State governor Nasir El-Rufai wrote formally to the Office of the National Security Adviser (ONSA). The subject: alleged procurement of approximately 10 kg of thallium sulphate, a highly toxic chemical, purportedly sourced from Poland. His letter demanded clarification on purpose, permits, storage safeguards and regulatory compliance. He framed the alleged importation as a grave public-safety concern.

The ONSA response, dated February 13 2026, denied any procurement or intent to procure thallium sulphate. Crucially, it also stated that the allegation had been referred to the Department of State Services (DSS) for investigation and that El-Rufai and others with information would be invited to provide evidence.

That referral placed the poison allegation squarely before the DSS — an agency that operates under the coordination of the National Security Adviser.

Three days later, the situation transformed dramatically.

February 16: DSS Files Criminal Charges

On February 16 2026, the DSS filed formal charges at the Federal High Court Abuja against Mallam Nasir El-Rufai in Charge No. FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026.

The charge sheet states that during a February 13 2026 Arise TV interview, El-Rufai admitted to intercepting the phone communications of National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu and to relating with individuals who did so. It contains three counts:

unlawful interception of the NSA’s communications under Section 12(1) of the Cybercrimes Act 2024

failure to report known interceptors under Section 27(b) of the same Act

compromising national security through interception under Section 131(2) of the Nigerian Communications Act 2003

The prosecution is brought by DSS counsel from its Abuja headquarters.

Thus, within seventy-two hours of ONSA referring El-Rufai’s poison allegation to DSS, the same DSS filed criminal charges against El-Rufai in a case directly involving the National Security Adviser himself.

This is the core institutional collision: the complainant’s coordinating authority and the prosecutor’s supervisory authority are the same person.

The Dual-Track Investigation Problem

Two investigations now exist simultaneously:

1. The poison importation allegation against ONSA

referred by ONSA to DSS

to determine whether Ribadu’s office procured thallium sulphate

2. The interception charges against El-Rufai

filed by DSS

alleging unlawful interception of Ribadu’s communications

Both tracks sit inside the same security architecture overseen by the NSA.

As National Security Adviser, Ribadu chairs inter-agency coordination and supervises national security operations. The DSS reports through that structure. Even if no direct instruction is given, institutional hierarchy alone creates an unavoidable perception — and risk — of influence.

That is precisely what the law of conflict of interest seeks to prevent.

Why This Is a Classic “Judge in His Own Case” Situation

The conflict is structural, not personal. It arises from roles, not motives.

Ribadu is the alleged victim in the interception charges

Ribadu is the head of the office accused in the poison allegation

Ribadu is the coordinator of the agency investigating both matters

In legal doctrine, this is textbook nemo judex in causa sua. Nigerian constitutional jurisprudence recognises that even the appearance of bias invalidates proceedings. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

Here, the appearance is unavoidable:

the same security hierarchy examines allegations against the NSA

while prosecuting the NSA’s accuser

under the NSA’s coordination authority

No democratic system treats such an arrangement as acceptable.

The Stakes: Legitimacy of Both Cases

The danger is not theoretical. It affects both investigations.

If DSS clears ONSA of the poison allegation, critics will say the NSA oversaw his own exoneration.

If DSS pursues El-Rufai aggressively, critics will say the NSA oversaw retaliation against his accuser.

Either outcome becomes suspect. Institutional credibility erodes regardless of facts.

This is why recusal exists — to protect investigations from suspicion, not merely from actual interference.

The Only Credible Remedy: Temporary Step-Aside

The solution is straightforward and standard in governance systems worldwide:

Nuhu Ribadu should step aside from any supervisory role over both investigations until they conclude.

This is not a presumption of guilt. It is a protection of institutional integrity.

An independent investigative arrangement could be created through:

direct Attorney-General oversight

an inter-agency panel outside NSA coordination

or a special independent inquiry mechanism

Any of these would remove the structural conflict.

None can occur while the NSA remains the supervising authority over the investigating agency.

The Principle That Must Prevail

The issue is not El-Rufai’s conduct. If unlawful interception occurred, it should be prosecuted.

The issue is not the poison allegation’s truth. If false, it should be disproved.

The issue is procedural justice: who supervises the process.

When the same official is simultaneously:

the alleged victim

the accused office holder

and the overseer of investigators

the rule of law demands separation.

Nigeria’s constitutional order cannot sustain a precedent where a national security chief presides — directly or indirectly — over investigations in which he is personally implicated on both sides.

Conclusion: A Test of Nigeria’s Security State

This confrontation has become a constitutional moment for Nigeria’s security architecture.

If Ribadu continues to supervise the DSS while DSS investigates allegations against his office and prosecutes his accuser, the conclusion will be unavoidable: Nigeria has allowed a security official to become arbiter in his own dispute.

The remedy is simple, lawful and necessary.

Nuhu Ribadu must step aside temporarily from oversight of these investigations.

Because in any constitutional democracy — and especially in matters of national security power —

no man can be a judge in his own case.

Mohammed Bello Doka can be reached via [email protected]