By Nkechi Eze
The Court of Appeal in Kaduna has upheld the refusal of bail to former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, ruling that he failed to present fresh and compelling evidence to justify overturning the decision of the state’s High Court.
The three-member panel, in a unanimous judgment delivered on Thursday, held that the lower court acted within its discretion when it rejected El-Rufai’s second bail application on June 10, 2026, while affirming the order for an accelerated hearing of his criminal trial.
The lead judgment, delivered by Justice Onyekachi Aja Otisi, according to a Certified True Copy obtained by a correspondent on Friday, found no merit in the former governor’s appeal against the refusal of bail.
“There is no merit in this Appeal. It fails and is hereby dismissed. The ruling of the lower Court delivered on 10/6/2026 is hereby affirmed,” Otisi ruled.
El-Rufai, who governed Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023, is being prosecuted by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) over alleged financial offences linked to his administration. He has denied wrongdoing and challenged the circumstances of his continued detention.
Following the High Court’s rejection of his bail application and its directive for an accelerated trial, the former governor approached the appellate court, arguing that the circumstances of his case warranted his release.
However, the appellate panel held that the trial court’s decision was supported by the affidavit evidence submitted by both the prosecution and the defence, adding that El-Rufai had not established sufficient grounds for appellate intervention.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the prosecution’s concerns that some of the former governor’s public comments, including statements made during a televised interview, could potentially interfere with the administration of justice.
The prosecution had cited remarks attributed to El-Rufai concerning his determination to defend his political legacy against attempts to criminalise him. It also alleged that, during an interview with Arise Television on April 26, 2026, he admitted to wiretapping the telephone line of the National Security Adviser.
The judgment noted that El-Rufai acknowledged participating in the interview and being tried in a separate case relating to the subject matter.
Nevertheless, the appellate court emphasised that its decision on bail did not constitute a determination of the former governor’s guilt, stressing that the constitutional presumption of innocence remained applicable.
“Now, without doubt, by unequivocal constitutional provisions, the Appellant is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” Otisi stated.
The justice explained that the trial court’s evaluation of affidavit evidence concerning the possibility of interference with justice should not be interpreted as a pronouncement on the substantive criminal allegations against El-Rufai.
The panel also examined the former governor’s argument that his return to custody after attending his late mother’s burial demonstrated that he posed no flight risk and should therefore be granted bail.
El-Rufai had relied on his release to attend the burial and his subsequent return to custody as evidence supporting his application. The prosecution, however, maintained that security operatives accompanied and closely monitored him throughout the period.
The appellate court further observed that photographs allegedly showing El-Rufai attending funeral prayers at the National Mosque in Abuja were referenced in his affidavit but were not attached to the bail application before the trial court.
According to Otisi, the trial judge could not be expected to rely on evidence that had not been properly presented before the court.
“Courts are not allowed to act on speculations or conjecture to reach its decision, more so in our criminal jurisprudence,” he said.
The panel consequently upheld the lower court’s finding that El-Rufai had not sufficiently demonstrated that his return to custody was entirely voluntary or that the circumstances surrounding the burial warranted a different decision on bail.
It also affirmed the directive that his trial should proceed on an accelerated basis, with hearings conducted from day to day as far as practicable, while he remained in ICPC custody.
The appellate court noted that there was no evidence before it establishing that the prosecution had failed to diligently pursue the case.
However, Otisi indicated that El-Rufai could return to the trial court to seek a fresh consideration of his bail application if the prosecution failed to prosecute the case diligently.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo agreed that the former governor had not presented new and compelling facts capable of justifying a reversal of the lower court’s decision.
“Nothing had changed; therefore, I am unable to agree that a miscarriage of justice had occurred,” she said.
Justice Lateef Ganiyu also concurred with the lead judgment, holding that the failure to attach documents relied upon in support of the bail application weakened the appellant’s case.
