The Federal High Court in Abuja on Thursday allowed the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) and former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai to play selected portions of CCTV footage relating to allegations of restricted family access during his detention.
Justice Chigozie Onah, who ruled on separate applications filed by the commission and El-Rufai, limited each party to 20 minutes of footage in open court, rejecting the former governor’s request for the complete recordings, which span more than six hours.
The judge said the court could not be turned into a viewing centre, adding that it lacked the time to watch the entire recordings. He also agreed with the ICPC that playing the footage in full in open court could expose sensitive information about the commission’s facility and create security risks.
Justice Onah said that if the complete recordings were to be played, they could be viewed in his chambers. He subsequently adjourned the case until November 3 at 1 p.m. for the definite hearing of the substantive applications.
The judge also rejected El-Rufai’s request to compel two ICPC officials who provided evidence in the commission’s court processes to appear for cross-examination. He explained that fundamental rights enforcement cases were determined primarily through affidavit evidence and that the procedure was different from ordinary civil proceedings.
El-Rufai instituted the suit against the ICPC, its chairman, Musa Aliyu, SAN, and the Attorney-General of the Federation, seeking N10 billion in damages over alleged denial of access to his wife, Mrs Aichatou Asabe, and son, Abba, while he was in the commission’s custody.
In the suit marked FHC/ABJ/CS/1852/2026, filed on August 13 by his lawyer, Ubong Akpan, the former governor asked the court to declare that his fundamental rights under the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remained enforceable despite his detention.
He also sought orders compelling the commission to produce complete, unedited CCTV recordings covering specific periods in June and July, as well as visitor registers and other records relating to visits by his family members.
El-Rufai further requested permission to question Sadiq Baba, who certified the CCTV exhibit, and John Uche, the ICPC official who deposed to the commission’s counter-affidavit.
He wanted the officials to explain how the video clips were selected, copied and certified, whether other recordings existed and why the commission had not produced them.
The former governor also asked the court to order that any footage produced be played in open court in the presence of the parties and their lawyers. He urged the judge to presume that any withheld recordings would be unfavourable to the commission if it failed to produce them as directed.
In his arguments, El-Rufai maintained that the three video clips submitted by the ICPC did not establish that the commission had provided all the relevant recordings.
He argued that the commission controlled the CCTV cameras, storage system, visitor registers and entry and exit records, making it responsible for producing the complete evidence.
According to him, the commission had failed to provide recordings from June 7 and July 4, while submitting only selected clips from July 7.
“The omitted portion of July 7 at about 14:53 shows the applicant’s son being dragged, and his leg trapped in the gutter.
“The clip at about 14:54:55 shows the officer falling at a ditch. Those images contradict the account in the Counter Affidavit,” he said.
El-Rufai also argued that the June 7 recordings would show that the commission invited his wife into its premises on the first night of his detention.
He said the July 4 footage was important in examining the ICPC’s allegation that his wife had been smuggled into the facility after official visiting hours.
“If the court is to attach weight to Exhibit ICPC B or to the certificate, the makers ought to be available to be tested. The Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2009 permit the court to receive oral evidence and to require a deponent to attend,” he argued.
The former governor also relied on Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which provides for public proceedings, and cited the Supreme Court decision in Dickson v. Sylva (2017) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1567) 167 in support of his request for the video exhibit to be demonstrated in open court.
He further invoked Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which allows a court to presume that evidence that could be produced but is withheld would be unfavourable to the party withholding it.
The ICPC, however, opposed the request for the complete footage to be played in open court, arguing that some of the recordings contained sensitive information that could compromise the security of its facility.
In its counter-affidavit filed in October, the commission urged the court to reject El-Rufai’s application, maintaining that the relevant portions of the footage should be considered without exposing sensitive security details.
The commission had earlier filed an application seeking permission to play three CCTV clips attached to its counter-affidavit as Exhibit ICPC B.
The clips, which it described as “The Scuffle,” “The Son Being Taken Away” and “Unauthorized Entry,” were presented as evidence of incidents that occurred at its facility.
In an affidavit supporting the application, David Efut, a litigation officer in the ICPC’s Legal Services Department, said the recordings were relevant to resolving disputed accounts of the events and would help the court assess the sequence of events and the conduct of those involved.
The commission’s position followed allegations by El-Rufai that his wife and son were denied access to him while he was in detention.
In a joint counter-affidavit filed by the ICPC and its chairman, Uche, a Chief Anti-Corruption Assistant in the commission’s Internal Security Support Unit, maintained 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 medical visit on July 7 in compliance with a court order permitting El-Rufai’s personal physician to see him. He said the visit was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s wife.
According to the officer, the commission subsequently received reports that the hospital visit had allegedly been turned into a political meeting, which he said raised concerns about compliance with its security protocols.
He said the commission introduced temporary access restrictions while reviewing the security arrangements.
Uche also alleged that El-Rufai’s son, Abba, attempted to gain entry into the facility on July 7 but was prevented from doing so. He claimed that the younger El-Rufai subsequently lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg against its edge.
The officer further alleged that El-Rufai’s wife was brought into the commission’s premises on July 4 at about 7:35 p.m., after official visiting hours, with the assistance of some officers who were facing disciplinary action.
He said the commission consequently suspended her visiting access pending the completion of its security review and the implementation of appropriate measures.
The ICPC maintained that its CCTV recordings were accurate and had not been altered or tampered with during the period in question.
The dispute over the recordings remains central to the case, with El-Rufai seeking the complete footage to challenge the commission’s account, while the ICPC argues that security concerns should limit what can be shown in open court.
