Lawyers to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, have filed a motion before the Federal High Court, Abuja Division, challenging the legality and competence of a wiretapping charge brought against him by the Department of State Services (DSS).
In the application filed in Charge No: FHC/ABJ/CR/99/2026 between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and El-Rufai, the former governor is asking the court to quash and/or strike out the charge, describing it as incompetent and unconstitutional.
The motion on notice, dated February 16, 2026, seeks an order discharging the defendant on the grounds that the charge discloses no offence known to law and constitutes what the defence termed a gross abuse of court process.
Challenge to DSS Legal Status
A central plank of the objection is the argument that the charge was initiated by the “Department of State Services,” which the defence claims is an entity unknown to Nigerian law.
According to El-Rufai’s legal team, the agency established under the National Security Agencies Act is the State Security Service (SSS), not the DSS. The lawyers contend that any charge initiated in the name of an entity not recognised by statute is fundamentally defective.
They further argue that the security agency lacks prosecutorial powers, and therefore cannot validly institute criminal proceedings.
Alleged Constitutional Violations
The defence also maintains that the charge is incurably defective because it fails to disclose particulars of the alleged offences. It argues that the absence of specific details renders the charge incompetent and denies the defendant the opportunity to adequately prepare his defence.
Additionally, the objection contends that the charge violates the constitutional right against self-incrimination, as guaranteed under the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
El-Rufai is also seeking N2 billion in costs against the security agency for what his lawyers describe as abuse and misuse of the criminal justice process.
The court is expected to hear arguments on the preliminary objection, after which it will determine whether the charge can stand.
The prosecution has yet to formally respond to the application. Observers say the case could test procedural and constitutional questions surrounding the powers of security agencies to initiate criminal proceedings.