Human rights activist and lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, on Monday testified as a witness for the Department of State Services (DSS) in the ongoing trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, over his alleged claim of illegally accessing a telephone conversation involving the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu.
At the resumed hearing before the Federal High Court in Abuja, the court played a video recording of El-Rufai’s February 13, 2026 interview on Arise Television, in which he alleged that Ribadu’s telephone conversation had been intercepted.
During the interview aired on the programme Prime Time, El-Rufai had claimed that the Federal Government routinely monitored citizens’ telephone conversations without judicial approval.
“Someone tapped his phone. The government listens to our calls all the time without a court order. Someone tapped his phone and told us that he gave the order,” El-Rufai had stated.
The former governor is facing a five-count amended charge bordering on the alleged unauthorised access to a telephone conversation involving the NSA. He pleaded not guilty to the charges when he was arraigned in April and was subsequently granted bail in the sum of N100 million in May.
Led in evidence by DSS counsel, Oluwole Aladedoye, Adeyanju told the court that reports had circulated on February 12 suggesting that El-Rufai was either going to be arrested or invited for questioning by security agencies.
He said he publicly advised the former governor to honour any invitation from security agencies, insisting that he did not view the matter as politically motivated.
“I publicly urged El-Rufai to present himself for investigation,” Adeyanju told the court.
The activist also disclosed that he was invited by Arise Television to participate in a programme on February 13, the same day El-Rufai granted the interview that has now become a central piece of evidence in the case.
Following an application by the DSS, the court admitted and played the video recording of El-Rufai’s interview, after which Adeyanju confirmed that it accurately reflected the statements made by the former governor.
The security agency also tendered Adeyanju’s own interview conducted on the same day by Arise Television anchor Charles Aniagolu, alongside a certificate of compliance. The flash drive and accompanying certificate were admitted as Exhibits H and H1, and the interview was played in open court.
In the recorded interview, Adeyanju was asked whether he believed the government genuinely intended to arrest El-Rufai.
Responding, he said, “The DSS would have arrested him at the airport if that was their intention.”
Continuing his testimony, Adeyanju revealed that after the television appearance, he received an invitation from the DSS and honoured it, although reluctantly.
“I honoured the invitation and reluctantly made a statement at the DSS office,” he told the court, adding that he confirmed to investigators that El-Rufai made the statement alleging that the NSA’s telephone conversation had been tapped.
During cross-examination by El-Rufai’s counsel, Paul Erokoro, Adeyanju was asked whether he heard the former governor expressly say that he personally tapped any phone conversation.
The activist responded, “We listened to their calls.”
Erokoro further questioned whether hearing a conversation played on a phone’s speaker amounted to wiretapping. While the DSS objected to the line of questioning, the defence argued that it was relevant to clarifying the witness’s earlier testimony.
Adeyanju maintained that if he had merely heard a conversation played on speaker while present, he “would not have lied about it.”
When asked whether he would be surprised if the NSA could not identify the device allegedly used to intercept the conversation, the activist replied that he had “no opinion on the matter.”
He also told the court that his appearance was compulsory, stressing, “I only appeared in court because I was summoned and had no choice.”
Earlier in the proceedings, Adeyanju tendered the subpoena through which he was summoned to testify, and the document was admitted in evidence.
Justice Joyce Abdulmalik subsequently adjourned the matter until June 23 for the continuation of trial.
