The Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna has dismissed an appeal by former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, challenging the refusal of his bail application by the Kaduna State High Court, upholding his continued detention while directing that his criminal trial be accelerated.
The three-member appellate panel unanimously dismissed the appeal in a judgment delivered on Thursday, ruling that El-Rufai had failed to establish fresh facts or special circumstances sufficient to justify overturning the decision of the lower court.
The judgment, contained in a Certified True Copy obtained on Friday, affirmed the Kaduna State High Court’s June 10, 2026, decision rejecting El-Rufai’s second bail application.
In the lead judgment, Justice Onyekachi Aja Otisi held that the trial judge had exercised his discretion judicially and judiciously in refusing to grant the former governor bail.
In Appeal Number CA/K/254C/2026, the appellate court resolved the sole issue for determination against El-Rufai and in favour of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
“There is no merit in this appeal; it fails and is hereby dismissed. The ruling of the lower court delivered on 10/6/2026 is hereby affirmed,” Justice Otisi ruled.
The court also struck out El-Rufai’s reply brief, filed on September 29, describing the document as incompetent.
The appellate panel maintained that it would not interfere with the findings of a trial court unless the appellant demonstrated that the findings were perverse or that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
In considering the appeal, the court examined arguments by the prosecution that certain public statements attributed to El-Rufai raised concerns about possible interference with the administration of justice.
The prosecution had cited remarks allegedly made by the former governor during a televised interview in which he spoke about defending his political legacy against individuals he accused of seeking to criminalise him.
It also referred to an interview El-Rufai reportedly granted Arise Television on April 26, 2026, during which he allegedly admitted to wiretapping the telephone line of the National Security Adviser.
According to the judgment as reported, El-Rufai acknowledged participating in the interview and facing a separate case relating to the subject matter.
The arguments were considered within the context of the bail application and the evidence presented by both parties.
However, the Court of Appeal made it clear that its decision to uphold the denial of bail did not amount to a finding that El-Rufai was guilty of the allegations against him.
Justice Otisi emphasised that the former governor remained constitutionally presumed innocent until proven guilty.
“Now, without doubt, by unequivocal constitutional provisions, the Appellant is presumed innocent until proven guilty,” the judge stated.
The court explained that the trial court’s assessment of affidavit evidence concerning the possibility of interference with justice did not constitute a pronouncement of guilt.
The appeal, therefore, centred on whether El-Rufai had presented sufficient grounds for overturning the refusal of bail, rather than whether the allegations against him had been established.
Before the judgment, El-Rufai’s counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, had urged the appellate court to set aside the lower court’s decision and release his client pending the determination of the criminal charges against him.
During proceedings on October 6, Erokoro argued that the offences for which the former governor was being prosecuted were bailable and did not attract the death penalty.
The senior lawyer maintained that there was no sufficient justification for keeping his client in custody while he awaited trial.
He also argued that El-Rufai’s continued detention was making it difficult for him to prepare his defence effectively, particularly in relation to access to his lawyers and witnesses.
The Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission, which is prosecuting the former governor over alleged financial offences arising from his administration, opposed the appeal and urged the court to uphold the refusal of bail.
The commission’s lead counsel, Ayodeji Adedipe, argued during the October 6 proceedings that the Kaduna State High Court had acted correctly in rejecting the application.
Adedipe told the appellate court that El-Rufai had filed three separate bail applications before the trial court and that all three had been rejected.
According to the prosecution, the first application was dismissed, while the second was also rejected after the former governor failed to establish exceptional circumstances warranting another application.
The prosecution further stated that El-Rufai subsequently filed a third bail application, which was also dismissed, but chose to appeal against the ruling on the second application.
Adedipe argued that the former governor failed to disclose the rejection of the third application to the Court of Appeal.
He consequently urged the appellate panel to dismiss the appeal for lacking merit.
The court ultimately upheld the ruling on the second bail application, finding that El-Rufai had not demonstrated sufficient grounds for appellate intervention.
Despite rejecting his request for bail, the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s order for an accelerated hearing of the substantive criminal case.
The panel directed that proceedings should, as far as practicable, be conducted on a day-to-day basis while El-Rufai remained in the custody of the ICPC.
The directive is intended to ensure that the criminal proceedings move forward without unnecessary delays while the former governor remains detained pending trial.
The appellate court also noted that no evidence had been presented to establish that the prosecution had failed to pursue the case diligently.
The ruling means El-Rufai will remain in ICPC custody pending further proceedings, while the substantive criminal case is expected to proceed on an accelerated basis.
However, the court’s decision does not determine the outcome of the criminal charges against him, and the former governor remains presumed innocent under the Constitution until proven guilty.