Daily Trust Editorial, Monday April 27, 2026
The decision by security operatives to bar journalists from covering the trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous judicial precedent. The allegations and charges against El-Rufai before the Kaduna High Court and the Federal High Court are all matters of public interest as they relate to his handling of public funds and other matters during his tenure as governor of the state and thereafter. Therefore, this puzzling decision to deny journalists access to the trial directly contravenes several constitutional provisions, principally those of Section 36 (3), which stipulates that the proceedings of a court or tribunal shall be held in public, and that of Section 36 (4), which stipulates the right to a free hearing in “public” in criminal cases.
The only exception to these constitutional provisions is that the court has the right to bar certain individuals, excluding parties to the trial, only in the case of defence, public morals, public safety, public order, and the protection of minors. None of those exclusionary grounds apply in this instance, and no argument can be made to justify them.
It goes without saying that Nigeria is not a military junta; it is a democracy. In every democratic context, the principle of open justice remains fundamental. This means that in any country where democracy is the system of governance, justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Judicial procedures must therefore be open and transparent.
The obfuscation of El-Rufai’s trial behind a smokescreen of imposed silence, gag orders, and media blackout, which came about with no court order and no justification whatsoever, violates these key constitutional provisions and democratic tenets.
In addition, the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria does not only guarantee a right to free hearing and open trials; it contains key provisions that impose certain duties on journalists and protect their right to carry out these duties. Section 39(1) guarantees freedom of expression, the right to hold and impart opinions, and, crucially, the right to receive information. Section 22 of the Constitution specifically imposes an institutional obligation on journalists by charging them to hold the government accountable and uphold the fundamental objectives of the state.
Barring journalists from a trial like this is a direct contravention of two constitutional provisions. We note that not only were journalists barred from covering the trial and performing their constitutionally sanctioned roles, but no court order or justification was provided for this decision.
Furthermore, we are deeply concerned that the decision to bar journalists from this trial was not enforced by court officials but by security operatives. This is a very concerning development as it effectively shows that some security agencies that are under the control of the executive arm of government, are exercising control over a judicial procedure in which they have no constitutional role. This clearly contravenes the principles of separation of powers that provide independence to the three arms of government—the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary.
By allowing this overzealousness and the ceding of its duties to security operatives, the Nigerian judiciary is putting itself on trial before the court of public opinion, one in which it can only incur damage to its reputation. While we have the examples of the Dasuki trial, which injured the judiciary more than it enhanced its reputation, this mishandling of the El-Rufai trial poses a similar risk or even greater risk.
El-Rufai is on trial for a bailable offence; yet, he is being remanded in custody over unduly extended periods of time in a manner that is more persecutorial than prosecutorial. On what basis is El-Rufai being remanded in the custody of the ICPC rather than a regular prison, as stipulated by the law?
To avoid the reputational harm this will inflict on the judiciary, the National Judicial Council (NJC) must step in to impose its boundaries, reassert the right of the judiciary to decide how trials must be conducted—as stipulated by Section 17 (2)(e), which guarantees independence, impartiality, and integrity of courts of law—and not quietly cede its powers to security operatives that are answerable to the executive.
We cannot ignore the political dimensions of these trials and how they are being handled. El-Rufai is a major opposition voice and claims that his trial is being guided by political rather than criminal interests. Objectively observing how these proceedings are being handled, we must raise serious misgivings about the neutrality of the process and its potential implications for our democracy.
This action is setting a dangerous precedent that must not be allowed to stand. The public interest in this case is precisely the reason why this trial must be held in the open and why Nigerians must have access to its proceedings. Security agencies have already overstepped their bounds by this action; this must not be the new norm in our democratic culture.
The executive branch, which oversees all security agencies, must call them to order and refrain from subsuming the powers of the judiciary. Our temples of justice must not be compromised in the high-stakes political games that our politicians play.
For Nigeria to remain a democracy, certain lines must never be blurred. An agency of the executive arm must not be allowed to dictate how judicial proceedings should be conducted, especially when these actions violate constitutional provisions. For our democracy to have any kind of legitimacy, our judiciary must remain sacrosanct.
