As Political Weapon Regardless Of Who Is Involved
![](https://thenigerialawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TheNigerialawyer-WhatsApp-Channel1.jpg")
Former Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Professor Chidi Anselm Odinkalu, and human rights activist and former presidential candidate Omoyele Sowore have both condemned the Kaduna State High Court’s decision to deny bail to former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai, with Odinkalu describing the ruling as “a new low” that is “neither law nor justice” and Sowore declaring he will “never support the lawfare being waged” against the former governor.
The convergence of criticism from two individuals who have historically been critical of El-Rufai’s conduct in office underscores the severity of the legal and constitutional concerns raised by Justice Darius Khobo’s ruling, which denied bail on the grounds that El-Rufai’s status as a former governor could allow him to interfere with ongoing ICPC investigations.
The criticism comes as El-Rufai remains in ICPC custody following the court’s decision to defer its ruling on his bail application to the first week of June, leaving the former governor detained for what will amount to several additional weeks on charges his lawyers describe as bailable offences.
Odinkalu’s criticism was direct and unsparing, challenging both the legal reasoning and the constitutional implications of the ruling.
“Darius Khobo, a judge of the Kaduna State High Court, has ruled today denying bail to El-Rufai. The charges are fraud and money laundering. They are clearly bailable,” Odinkalu stated on X.
He then attacked the court’s central reasoning, namely that El-Rufai’s former status as a governor justified the denial of bail because he could potentially interfere with investigations.
“That is a new low. If this were to be the law, Nigeria’s prisons will be full of former governors, ex-Ministers, and extinguished Senators on pre-trial detention,” Odinkalu warned.
The observation highlights the dangerous precedent the ruling sets. If former political status alone is sufficient grounds to deny bail on the assumption that the accused could interfere with investigations, virtually every former officeholder facing charges in Nigeria could be denied bail on the same basis, regardless of the nature of the charges, the strength of the evidence, or the accused’s willingness to comply with bail conditions.
Odinkalu acknowledged that public sentiment around El-Rufai’s case, given his controversial tenure and the strong feelings he inspires, might make the bail denial popular among some Nigerians. But he insisted that public opinion should not influence judicial standards.
“I will denounce this again today because it is neither law nor justice,” Odinkalu declared.
In a particularly striking passage, Odinkalu drew a moral equivalence between El-Rufai’s own conduct when he wielded power and the treatment he is now receiving from the court, condemning both as departures from proper legal process.
“What El-Rufai did to his critics and opponents was a vile abuse of power. What has happened today in the court of Darius Khobo is just as vile,” Odinkalu stated.
The statement is significant because it demonstrates that Odinkalu’s defence of El-Rufai’s bail rights is not motivated by sympathy for the former governor or approval of his conduct in office. Rather, it is a principled position that the rule of law must apply equally and consistently, even to individuals whose own record of respecting the rights of others is questionable.
By condemning both El-Rufai’s past abuse of power and the court’s present abuse of judicial discretion in the same breath, Odinkalu positions himself as a consistent advocate for legal principle rather than a partisan defender of any individual.
Omoyele Sowore, who has been at the receiving end of government prosecution himself and who has no political affinity with El-Rufai, issued an equally forceful statement on X.
“I will never support the lawfare being waged against former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai,” Sowore stated.
“Let the courts uphold the rule of law by granting him bail and ensuring he receives a fair trial. Bail is a constitutional right, not a tool for punishment or intimidation,” Sowore declared.
He went further, framing the issue as one that transcends El-Rufai’s individual case and affects all Nigerians.
“Using bail as a means of caging Nigerians is unjust, unlawful, and unacceptable. It is a practice we must all reject, regardless of who is involved,” Sowore stated.
Sowore’s use of the term “lawfare,” meaning the use of legal processes as a weapon of political warfare, echoes the characterisation offered by El-Rufai’s own defence counsel, Ukpong Akpan, who stated that “from the beginning, everything about Nasir El-Rufai’s travails has always been political.”
The statements from Odinkalu and Sowore respond to Justice Khobo’s decision at the Kaduna State High Court, where the judge deferred ruling on El-Rufai’s bail application and ordered the former governor to remain in ICPC custody pending the decision.
El-Rufai faces an amended nine-count charge bordering on alleged fraud, abuse of office, and corruption during his tenure as Kaduna State governor. The ICPC had earlier amended the charge, leaving El-Rufai as the sole defendant after dropping his co-accused.
The prosecution opposed bail on the grounds that El-Rufai could interfere with ongoing investigations, a position the court appeared to accept in deferring its ruling while keeping the former governor in custody.
El-Rufai’s counsel, Ukpong Akpan, faulted the court’s reasoning as unjustified.
“The court, in its wisdom, decided that because Nasir El-Rufai is a former governor, he is going to interfere with the investigation. Therefore, he is not entitled to bail in an allegation of financial impropriety. We respectfully disagree,” Akpan stated.
He described the decision as bearing political undertones and vowed to pursue legal remedies.
“The next step is to take the legal steps required to challenge it. We will respond through the proper legal process. That is what the law requires,” Akpan stated.
He appealed to El-Rufai’s supporters to remain calm. “Don’t allow fear to take over. Don’t act as if something fatal has happened. Nobody has died. In a conflict, you have gains and setbacks. Sometimes things work against you, but you must not be frightened. Sit up. We are going to take this battle on and we are going to win.”
The matter was adjourned to the first week of June for ruling on the bail application and continuation of proceedings.
The Kaduna State High Court’s denial of bail stands in contrast to the Federal High Court’s decision on April 14, when Justice Rilwanu Aikawa granted El-Rufai bail of N200 million in a separate ICPC case, albeit with strict conditions including the requirement for a traditional ruler and a senior civil servant as sureties, the deposit of passports, and a gag order.
El-Rufai now finds himself in the extraordinary position of having been granted bail by one court on one set of charges while being denied bail by another court on a separate set of charges filed by the same prosecution agency, the ICPC. His continued detention is anchored on the Kaduna State High Court’s refusal rather than the Federal High Court’s grant.
This dual-court situation exemplifies what El-Rufai’s lawyers have described as “phased litigation,” where multiple charges are filed across different courts by the same agency, creating a situation where bail granted in one case is rendered meaningless by denial in another.
Both Odinkalu and Sowore frame the bail issue as a constitutional matter rather than a question of judicial discretion.
Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees every person’s right to personal liberty and provides that a person charged with a criminal offence shall be entitled to bail, except in cases involving capital offences or offences punishable by life imprisonment.
The charges against El-Rufai, which centre on fraud, money laundering, and abuse of office, do not fall into the category of capital offences or offences carrying life imprisonment. Under established Nigerian jurisprudence, bail in such cases is generally regarded as a right rather than a privilege, and denial requires exceptional circumstances that the prosecution must demonstrate.
The court’s reliance on El-Rufai’s status as a former governor as grounds for denial, without evidence of specific attempts to interfere with investigations, raises the question of whether the court applied the correct legal standard or whether it substituted speculation about potential interference for the required evidentiary threshold.
The alignment of Odinkalu and Sowore in defence of El-Rufai’s bail rights is remarkable given the history.
Odinkalu has been consistently critical of El-Rufai’s governance record and his treatment of opponents during his time as governor. Sowore, as a persistent critic of the Nigerian political establishment, has had no political affinity with El-Rufai.
Yet both men recognise that the principles at stake transcend the individual. If bail can be denied to a former governor on the assumption that his status allows him to interfere with investigations, the same reasoning can be applied to any citizen whose social standing, connections, or resources could theoretically enable interference.
As Odinkalu noted, the logical extension of the court’s reasoning would fill Nigeria’s prisons with former officeholders on pre-trial detention, a prospect that would represent a fundamental departure from constitutional principles and established legal practice.
As Sowore stated, the issue is not about El-Rufai as an individual but about a practice that, “regardless of who is involved,” must be rejected.
“Bail is a constitutional right, not a tool for punishment or intimidation,” Sowore declared.
The question now is whether the Kaduna State High Court will reconsider its position when it revisits the bail application in June, or whether El-Rufai’s legal team will succeed in challenging the denial through an appeal to the Court of Appeal.
For El-Rufai, who has now spent months in detention across multiple agencies and faces charges in multiple courts, the denial of bail in Kaduna means continued imprisonment regardless of the Federal High Court’s more favourable ruling.
For Nigeria’s justice system, the case has become a test of whether constitutional bail rights will be upheld or whether, as Odinkalu warns, the courts will establish a precedent that effectively criminalises former political status.
Interested buyers are encouraged to place their orders and enquiries via:
0704 444 4777, 0704 444 4999, 0818 199 9888
Website: www.alexandernigeria.com
Reimagine your practice with the power of AI “...this is the only Nigerian book I know of on the topic.” — Ohio Books Ltd
Authored by Ben Ijeoma Adigwe, Esq., ACIArb (UK), LL.M, Dip. in Artificial Intelligence, Director, Delta State Ministry of Justice, Asaba, Nigeria.
Bonus:
Get a FREE eBook titled “How to Use the AI in Legalpedia and Law Pavilion” with every purchase.
How to Order: 📞 Call, Text, or WhatsApp: 08034917063 | 07055285878 📧 Email: benadigwe1@gmail.com 🌐 Website: www.benadigwe.com
Ebook Version: Access directly online at: https://selar.com/prv626
_______________________________________________________________________ [A MUST HAVE] Evidence Act Demystified With Recent And Contemporary Cases And Materials
The book, titled The Law of Torts in Nigeria: A Functional Approach, authored by Professor Hagler Sunny Okorie Ph.D and Ikeocha, Nathaniel Ngozi Esq, offers law students, practitioners, and academics a comprehensive guide to understanding and applying tort law in Nigerian courts. Interested buyers can place orders via the following contact numbers: 08028636615, 08037667945, 08032253813, or +234 902 196 2209.
