A Federal High Court in Abuja has refused former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai’s request to show all CCTV footage from the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) premises in open court.
Naija News reports that Justice Chigozie Onah, in a ruling on Thursday, instead allowed both El-Rufai and the anti-graft agency 20 minutes each to play the portions of the recording they considered relevant to the case.
The footage, which runs for over six hours, is at the centre of the former governor’s ₦10 billion fundamental rights suit against the commission.
Delivering the ruling on separate applications filed by both parties, Justice Onah said the court had neither the time to watch the full recording nor the intention of turning itself into a viewing centre.
He accepted the submission of the ICPC’s lawyer, Yetunde Mosunmola, that some details in the video were sensitive and could expose the commission’s facility to security risks if shown publicly.
The judge held that any full screening of the footage would have to take place in his chambers.
“Both parties only have 20 minutes each to play part of the footage at 1 pm in open court,” he ordered.
Justice Onah also rejected El-Rufai’s request to cross-examine two ICPC officials who deposed to the commission’s affidavits, explaining that fundamental rights cases are special proceedings decided on affidavit evidence.
The court also refused other reliefs sought by the former governor and adjourned the matter to November 3 for hearing.
El-Rufai, through his lawyer, Ubong Akpan, filed the suit on August 13 against the ICPC, its Chairman, Musa Aliyu (SAN), and the Attorney-General of the Federation.
He seeks ₦10 billion in damages for allegedly being denied access to his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and his son, Abba, while in detention, and a declaration that his fundamental rights remain in force despite his custody.
In response, the commission, through a counter-affidavit deposed to by John Uche of its Internal Security Support Unit, insisted that El-Rufai was lawfully held on the order of the Federal High Court, Kaduna.
Uche explained that on July 7, the commission allowed the former governor to visit his personal physician with its officers and his wife, in line with a court order.
He alleged that the hospital visit turned into a political meeting, forcing the commission to temporarily restrict his non-essential access.
The officer further claimed that on the same day, Abba, after being denied entry, lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg against its edge.
He also alleged that El-Rufai’s wife was smuggled into the commission’s premises at about 7.35pm on July 4, after visiting hours, with the help of some officials now facing disciplinary action, leading to the suspension of her visits.
To back its claims, the ICPC sought leave to play three clips from a USB drive marked Exhibit ICPC B, which it titled “The Scuffle,” “The Son Being Taken Away” and “Unauthorised Entry.”
A litigation officer with the commission, David Efut, said in an affidavit that the clips captured the disputed events as they happened and would help the court assess the sequence of events and the conduct of those involved.
El-Rufai, however, argued that the clips were selectively edited and asked the court to order the commission to produce the full recordings of June 7, July 4 and July 7, as well as its visitor registers and entry and exit logs.
“It has produced none of the recordings of June 7, none of the recordings of July 4 and only extracts of July 7.
“The omitted portion of July 7 at about 14:53 shows the applicant’s son being dragged, and his leg trapped in the gutter.
“The clip at about 14:54:55 shows the officer falling into a ditch. Those images contradict the account in the Counter Affidavit,” he stated.
He claimed the June 7 footage would show that the ICPC chairman personally invited his wife into the premises on the first night of his detention, while the July 4 recording would disprove the claim that she was smuggled in.
Relying on Section 36(3) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court judgment in Dickson v. Sylva, the former governor insisted that the videos be played publicly.
He further urged the court to presume, under Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, that any evidence the commission withholds is against its interest.
The ICPC, in its response filed in October, opposed the request, maintaining that full public screening could put its facility at risk and suggesting that the footage be viewed in chambers if necessary.
Join the conversation
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.