Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has rejected allegations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) that he abused medical privileges or violated a court order while in custody.
Mr El-Rufai, in a statement issued on Wednesday by his media aide, Muyiwa Adekeye, accused the anti-graft agency of misrepresenting both facts and law.
|
|
His defence team has demanded the retraction of the ICPC’s 7 no
July publication titled “El Rufai and Medical Doctor Abuse Privilege, Violate Court Order.”
|
|
|
|---|
Read below Mr El-Rufai’s response to ICPC
PRESS STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF MALAM NASIR AHMAD EL-RUFAI IN RESPONSE TO THE ICPC PRESS STATEMENT OF 7TH JULY 20268th July 2026
This statement is issued to correct, on record, the inaccuracies of facts and law in the ICPC’s recent statement regarding Malam Nasir El-Rufai.
On 7th July 2026, the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) released a statement titled “El Rufai and Medical Doctor Abuse Privilege, Violate Court Order.” The contents of the statement do not fit the reality it purports to describe, as this rebutal will demonstrate.
1. THE PROCEEDINGS OF 6TH JULY 2026
Malam El-Rufai’s non-appearance in court on 6th July arose from an unresolved medical situation that had been on record with the ICPC beforehand. During the preceding week, Professor Bello Abubakar, Malam El-Rufai’s personal physician, came to the ICPC facility to examine him, having first spoken with the ICPC’s own attending doctor regarding the request. Despite that prior coordination, Professor Abubakar was kept waiting for over two hours and was ultimately not permitted to see his patient. Following that denial, the family formally requested, in writing, that Malam El-Rufai be taken to the National Hospital, Abuja, to see Professor Abubakar for a consultation at 5:00pm on Tuesday, 7th July 2026.
The ICPC conveyed that request for consultation to the National Hospital several days before any family member was informed of a proposed court sitting in Kaduna on 6th July. Each step in this sequence falls within the entitlement to medical access secured by the standing order of Justice R.M. Aikawa of 1st April 2026 in Charge No. FHC/KD/73C/2026, discussed further below. It was against this background—an unresolved medical need, a documented denial of access to his physician the week before, and Malam El-Rufai’s continuing ill health—that the scheduled trip to Kaduna on 6th July became untenable. He did not travel that day for that reason.
The ICPC statement gives a different account. It asserts that the former Governor “did not appear before the court,” that he “declined to accompany” the officers who came to convey him, and that when asked by the Commission’s medical doctor he “reportedly indicated that he had no immediate medical complaints but stated that his wife … had requested that he see his personal physician.”This account omits the medical history set out above.
On the record, the ICPC’s own personnel had known, for a week, of the outstanding request for Malam El-Rufai to see Professor Abubakar, of the earlier denial of that access, and of the family’s already-approved arrangement for a hospital visit on 7th July—all of it predating, and independent of, any awareness of a court date.
The suggestion that he had “no immediate medical complaints” on 6th July, or that the request to see his doctor was devised to avoid court, is accordingly untrue. In open court on 6th July, the prosecution sought to place this same account before the court from the Bar—that is, as submissions of counsel rather than sworn testimony—in support of an application that the trial proceed in Malam El-Rufai’s absence. No witness was called and no evidence was tendered in support of the application.
When the defence objected on the basis that evidence of this nature could only properly be given on oath and tested by cross-examination, and asked that the prosecution enter the witness box to have the account formally tested, the prosecution declined to do so. The court subsequently adjourned the matter to 15th July 2026 to hear the Malam El-Rufai’s recusal application and to await the Honourable Chief Judge’s directive on a pending transfer petition dated 30th June, 2026.
The ICPC’s statement omits both the existence of the 1st April 2026 order, the prior request for medical attention that was denied, and the sequence of events in court, and instead presents the day’s events as though the Malam El-Rufai was at fault for exercising a right the ICPC had itself been ordered to respect.
2. NO ORDER WAS VIOLATED BY THE MEDICAL VISIT
The ICPC statement refers to a “court-approved medical visit” and asserts that photographs later circulated show “a clear violation of the court order.” No such order is identified—not its date, its forum, or its terms.The only order in existence on this subject is the order of Justice Aikawa of 1st April 2026 in Charge No. FHC/KD/73C/2026, referred to above. That order directs that Malam El-Rufai be afforded access to medical care in custody; it does not regulate, restrict, or impose conditions on who may see or be seen by him while that access is being exercised.
The ICPC’s suggestion that this order was “violated” by his being seen by other persons at the hospital misstates the order’s terms. The order requires the ICPC’s compliance, and should not be construed as a restriction upon the defendant, On the ICPC’s own account, what occurred on the day of the visit itself was that the ICPC “facilitated the defendant’s request to receive medical attention under appropriate security arrangements.” That was compliance with its existing obligation under the 1st April order. It is not a discretionary favour, and is not the exercise of some separate, unidentified order that they allege was breached by Malam El-Rufai.
3. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS AT THE HOSPITAL
The family’s request, as approved by the ICPC, was for a consultation at 5:00pm on 7th July—a quiet period at the hospital. The ICPC unilaterally rescheduled the consultation to 10:00am the same day, a materially busier period, and did not inform the family of the change until the morning of the visit itself. After the consultation with his personal physician, Professor Bello Abubakar, an oncologist, in a private consultation room, Malam El-Rufai remained in a public area of the hospital’s private wing for approximately one hour while awaiting a written medical report—a report the ICPC itself required before he could be returned to custody.
Some people became aware of his expected presence at the National Hospital and reached out with a request to see him, which was obliged, like in Isa Ashiru’s case. Other persons, who merely encountered him as he waited for his medical report, also came around for greetings, as often happens when a prominent person is sighted. The ICPC’s narrative that this visit was converted into a political meeting takes no account of its own conduct.
It was the Commission that moved the appointment from a quiet 5:00pm slot to a high-traffic 10:00am slot, without notice to the family until that morning, and it was the Commission’s own personnel who were stationed at the scene throughout. A narrative of political theatre engineered by the defence is not supported by a sequence in which the Commission itself selected the time, controlled the access, and had its own officers present.
4. MEDICAL CARE AND THE NELSON MANDELA RULES
The ICPC statement characterises its accommodation of Malam Nasir El-Rufai’s medical needs as “professional courtesies” and “goodwill” that it will no longer extend. Access to necessary medical care, including consultation with a physician of one’s choosing, is not a matter of institutional discretion. It is addressed in the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules), which inform the standard of humane treatment expected under Nigerian law. Rule 24 provides that prisoners should enjoy the same standard of health care available in the community, without discrimination arising from their legal situation. Rule 27 requires prompt access to medical treatment in urgent cases. Rule 32 provides that the relationship between physician and prisoner is to be governed by the same ethical and professional standards applicable to patients in the community, including confidentiality. Access to one’s own physician and to medical privacy are protections due to any person in custody, not concessions revocable at the ICPC’s discretion. Malam El-Rufai’s entitlement to medical care in custody is not, in any event, left to inference from the Mandela Rules alone. It is the subject of the express order of Justice Aikawa of 1st April 2026 in Charge No. FHC/KD/73C/2026, served on the ICPC.
The ICPC is certainly aware that any further restriction of his access to medical care, family, or legal counsel will be treated as a breach of that order. Malam El-Rufai’s counsels will meet any such breach with an immediate application to commit the ICPC for contempt, in addition to such other reliefs as may be appropriate for the enforcement of his fundamental rights.
5. THE ARREST OF PROFESSOR BELLO ABUBAKAR
The ICPC statement records, without particulars, that “Professor Bello Abubakar has been arrested for making false statements.” We call on the ICPC to state, with specificity: what statement is alleged to be false; whether it was made orally or in writing, and to whom; the date and context in which it was made; and whether the Professor was afforded the statutory cautions before his arrest. In the absence of such particulars, the arrest of a treating physician immediately following his attendance on a patient in ICPC custody raises serious questions as to its basis. We call for Professor Abubakar’s immediate and unconditional release pending the ICPC’s disclosure of the specific allegation against him.
6. THE ALLEGED “DISOBEDIENCE OF COURT ORDERS”
The ICPC states that it will “bring to the attention of the courts the flagrant disobedience of court orders.” No order has been disobeyed. The only order bearing on this subject, the 1st April 2026 order of Justice Aikawa entitles Malam El-Rufai to medical care; it has been complied with, not disobeyed, and it is not the order the ICPC purports to invoke against him.
7. CONCLUSION
The ICPC’s statement of 7th July 2026 rests on an incomplete and, in material respects, inaccurate account of the proceedings before 6th July and on that day, and of the circumstances of the medical visit that followed. The only order bearing on the medical visit is the 1st April 2026 order of Justice Aikawa which entitles Malam El-Rufai to unfettered access to medical care and which has been complied with, not breached. The sequence of events does not support the inference that the medical visit was used to stage a political meeting. We call on the ICPC to retract the statement insofar as it asserts a breach of a court order. Malam El-Rufai will continue to assert his right to a fair trial, his right to medical care of his choosing under the order of Justice Aikawa and the Nelson Mandela Rules, and his right to be treated in accordance with the standards guaranteed by law.
Signed this 8th day of July 2026
Muyiwa Adekeye
Media Adviser
