Former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai has firmly pushed back against accusations from the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), which recently claimed he abused his medical privileges and willfully ignored a court order. Speaking through his media adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, the former governor labeled the commission’s public statements as a mixture of factual inaccuracies and legal misinterpretations. At the heart of the dispute is his absence from a July 6 court hearing in Kaduna, which the ICPC framed as a deliberate act of obstruction. However, Mr. El-Rufai’s team maintains that his health issues were not only genuine but had been officially communicated to the commission well before the scheduled appearance, making his travel to Kaduna physically impossible at that time.
The situation escalated when Mr. El-Rufai’s personal physician, Dr. Bello Abubakar, was reportedly denied the opportunity to examine his patient, despite prior arrangements being made with the commission’s medical staff. According to the defense, the family had proactively requested that the former governor be taken to the National Hospital in Abuja for a pre-scheduled consultation on July 7. Crucially, the defense argues this medical necessity was established long before they were even notified of the Kaduna court date. By highlighting that this consultation was in line with an existing court order issued on April 1, the statement emphasizes that the ICPC is misrepresenting a legitimate medical necessity as an attempt to evade the law.
Adding to the tension is the procedural disagreement over how these allegations were introduced. The defense team argues that the ICPC attempted to bypass standard legal rigors by presenting its version of events from the bar, rather than calling witnesses or providing evidence that could be tested under oath. When the defense objected, insisting that such serious claims require proper cross-examination, the court ultimately adjourned the matter until July 15. This pause in proceedings is intended to allow for the hearing of a recusal application and the resolution of a pending petition to transfer the case, effectively forcing a “time out” in what has become an increasingly hostile legal battle.
The defense also took strong issue with the ICPC’s narrative surrounding Mr. El-Rufai’s brief appearance at the National Hospital. While the commission claimed that the visit was an unauthorized political gathering, the defense contends that the ICPC itself controlled the security arrangements and the timing of the visit. According to the statement, the commission suddenly shifted the appointment time from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m. without proper notice. During the brief period Mr. El-Rufai waited for his medical report in a public area, he was greeted by well-wishers—an interaction the defense insists was a natural occurrence in a public setting rather than a pre-planned political maneuver.
Furthermore, the defense team is calling for the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Bello Abubakar, who was arrested by the commission following the incident. They have demanded to know exactly what “false statements” the physician is accused of making, noting that the arrest feels like an attempt to intimidate those involved in the former governor’s defense. By citing both the April 1 court order and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, the statement asserts that access to medical care is not a privilege to be granted or revoked at a whim, but a fundamental legal right that the commission is bound to honor.
Ultimately, Mr. El-Rufai’s camp is calling on the ICPC to retract its July 7 statement, which they argue has unfairly damaged his reputation. They maintain that no court orders were violated and that the commission has, at various points, actually acted in accordance with the medical access order—contradicting the very narrative the ICPC is now pushing. As the case moves toward the July 15 hearing, the former governor’s legal team has made their position clear: they are fully committed to defending his right to a fair trial, his access to his chosen medical professionals, and, above all, the protection of his rights under the law. They have also signaled that any further interference with these rights will be met with firm legal action, including potential contempt proceedings against the commission.