THE TRIAL OF EL-RUFAI

Let the law take its course, contends ADAMS SHAMSILDEEN

There is a point at which advocacy ceases to be advocacy and looks like an unnecessary intrusion into a matter that is already firmly within the jurisdiction of competent institutions. The latest intervention by the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC) in the ongoing matter involving former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai raises precisely that question.

MURIC has formally written to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), seeking permission for a three-man delegation to visit El-Rufai, who, according to the material released by the organisation, has been in the commission’s custody since February 16, 2026.

The organisation’s request comes against the backdrop of El-Rufai’s fresh ₦10 billion fundamental-rights suit against the ICPC over allegations that his wife and son were denied access to him.

There is, of course, nothing inherently objectionable about a civil society organisation expressing concern about the treatment of a detainee. Human rights organisations have an important role to play in a democracy. But there is a significant difference between legitimate human-rights advocacy and inserting oneself into an ongoing legal and investigative process without a clearly established mandate or demonstrable necessity. That distinction appears to have been lost in MURIC’s latest intervention.

The first question MURIC should answer is deceptively simple: whose case is this? El-Rufai has legal representation. His lawyers have already approached the Federal High Court. His allegations concerning access to his family are now before the judiciary. The ICPC is a constitutionally established law-enforcement institution with its own statutory responsibilities.

Where, therefore, does MURIC fit into this equation? If the former governor believes his rights have been violated, he has already chosen the appropriate constitutional route: the courts. If his lawyers require evidence, documentation or access to relevant witnesses, the legal process provides mechanisms for obtaining them.

If there is credible evidence of abuse, intimidation or unlawful treatment, civil-society organisations can raise legitimate concerns through appropriate channels. But voluntarily inserting a delegation into an ongoing investigation does not automatically advance justice. It may instead complicate an already sensitive process.

MURIC’s request, coming at this particular moment, creates the uncomfortable impression of an organisation seeking to insert itself into a controversy in which it is neither a party nor a recognised legal representative.

What precisely is MURIC seeking to accomplish by inserting a three-man delegation into this institutional chain? If its purpose is welfare monitoring, it should say so clearly and explain the legal or humanitarian basis for the intervention. If its purpose is to investigate alleged human-rights violations, it should identify the mandate under which it intends to conduct such an investigation.

And if its purpose is simply solidarity, then it should be honest about that too. Because solidarity is different from independent fact-finding. The distinction matters.

Nobody should dispute the principle that a person in custody retains fundamental rights. Detention does not erase human dignity. It does not suspend constitutional protections.

It does not give law-enforcement agencies unlimited powers. But precisely because these principles are so important, they should be defended through credible institutions rather than political theatre.

El-Rufai has already approached the court. The court can determine whether his rights were breached. The court can examine the circumstances of his detention. The court can determine whether access to his family was unlawfully restricted.

MURIC should therefore be careful not to create the impression that the judiciary is incapable of addressing the matter without its intervention.

The fact that El-Rufai has reportedly spent approximately six months in ICPC custody does not establish illegality. Nor does it establish innocence or guilt. Those questions must be determined according to the circumstances of the case, applicable law and judicial orders.

This is where responsible civil-society advocacy becomes important. Rather than seeking privileged access to a detainee, an organisation genuinely concerned about due process could demand that the authorities explain the legal basis for the detention and that all proceedings comply with constitutional safeguards. That would be constructive. It would strengthen institutions rather than create competing centres of authority.

One of the recurring problems in Nigerian public life is the tendency of organisations, political groups and personalities to assume that expressing an opinion automatically confers authority over a matter. It does not. MURIC can comment. MURIC can advocate. MURIC can condemn. MURIC can petition. But none of these powers makes the organisation a party to the El-Rufai case or gives it supervisory authority over the ICPC.

That distinction should be respected. The commission has responsibilities under its enabling law. The courts have constitutional responsibilities. El-Rufai has legal rights. His lawyers have professional responsibilities. MURIC has none of these institutional roles in the case. It should therefore tread carefully.

Human-rights advocacy loses credibility when the public begins to suspect that it is selectively deployed. Nigeria has thousands of detainees whose families struggle to gain access to them, whose cases drag on for years, and whose constitutional rights may be threatened.

If MURIC is developing a systematic programme for monitoring detention conditions, that is commendable. But if its intervention is triggered primarily because the detainee is a former governor and prominent political figure, Nigerians are entitled to ask whether the organisation is applying a consistent standard.

Human rights must be universal. The true test of MURIC’s commitment would therefore be whether it is prepared to apply the same intensity of advocacy to ordinary Nigerians who lack political influence, media visibility and access to expensive legal representation.

The El-Rufai matter should be allowed to proceed through the appropriate channels. If the former governor’s rights were violated, the court should provide redress. If the ICPC acted within the law, that should equally be established. If investigators have a legitimate case, they should present their evidence. If El-Rufai has a legitimate defence, he should present it. There is no need for an additional layer of unofficial intervention.

Nigeria’s institutions are already under enormous pressure. They do not need civil-society organisations competing for jurisdiction over cases before them. MURIC should therefore reconsider the wisdom of its intervention.

In this instance, the organisation risks crossing the line from watchdog to participant, from advocate to interloper. And that is precisely why MURIC should step back. The El-Rufai matter belongs where it properly belongs: with the investigators, the lawyers and, ultimately, the courts.

 Shamsildeen writes from Abuja