Nasir El-Rufai has issued a formal notice to inform the public about what he describes as a coordinated and hostile campaign targeted at him. He points to an incident on 12 February 2026, when attempts were allegedly made to detain him upon his arrival at Abuja Airport from Cairo, as an early indication of escalating actions against him.
Subsequently, on 16 February 2026, he responded to an official summons from the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Following this, he was held in custody and later transferred on the night of 18 February to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC). Since then, he has remained detained and has been formally charged before two separate high courts.
On 18 April 2026, a publication by The Nation carried a report titled “El-Rufai’s trial: Gunmen invade principal witness home.” The article claimed that Mohammed Umar Karage, identified as a witness in an ongoing case at the Kaduna State High Court, had reported an alleged armed intrusion at his residence. While reporting criminal activity is a civic responsibility, the statement argues that attributing such incidents to others without proof is irresponsible and damaging.
The report allegedly implied that the incident was connected to El-Rufai’s legal case, particularly one of several charges involving disputed land decisions. It further cited Karage suggesting the attack might have been intended to intimidate or silence him, even drawing comparisons to the disappearance of Kaduna-based activist Abubakar Idris Dadiyata. These assertions, according to El-Rufai, create a misleading narrative designed to associate him with serious wrongdoing without evidence.
He maintains that such claims are intended to tarnish his reputation, weaken his legal standing especially regarding his bail application and potentially justify prolonged detention. The statement describes these actions as unjust and unacceptable, particularly in light of his record in public service.
El-Rufai firmly denies any involvement in the alleged incident and insists that he has no connection to the claims presented in the publication. In response, he has directed his legal representatives to commence defamation proceedings against those responsible for the report.
