Nasir El-Rufai’s liberty should not depend on whether Nigerians admire his politics. A defendant can be abrasive, influential, and capable of making enemies without surrendering the protection of the law. The case for his release begins with the purpose of custody before conviction: securing a legitimate criminal process. Where attendance and the integrity of evidence can be adequately protected through enforceable conditions, confinement requires a further explanation.
The courts must decide that question on the material before them, and the prosecution should have to meet a serious application with reasons specific to this defendant. Months in custody have consequences that no eventual acquittal could completely reverse. A person loses control over daily life, access to relationships becomes dependent on institutional arrangements, and the preparation of a defense may become more difficult. El-Rufai’s counsel has raised difficulties concerning access to lawyers and witnesses. Those complaints remain contested, but their practical importance is clear. A prosecution gains no legitimate advantage from arrangements that prevent an accused person from answering it effectively. The court can require evidence of the impediment and order a remedy without deciding the charges prematurely [R6].
The right question about liberty
Section 35 of the Constitution protects personal liberty while specifying circumstances in which it may lawfully be restricted. Section 36 protects fair hearing and presumed innocence. Reading those provisions together permits pretrial detention where legally justified; it does not make a filed allegation a sufficient answer to every later application for release. The reasons for custody must relate to the legal purpose being served. Public resentment, a defendant’s previous office, and a party’s desire to keep an opponent occupied do not supply that purpose. These constitutional protections would be worth little if their availability depended on a favorable public reputation [L1]. Federal criminal procedure gives concrete form to the inquiry.
The Administration of Criminal Justice Act distinguishes categories of offenses and identifies considerations including evasion, interference with witnesses or evidence, further offending, and risks to the integrity of criminal justice. Section 2 defines the Act’s scope by reference to federally created offenses and offenses punishable in the Federal Capital Territory. The applicable procedural law must be established for each Kaduna State proceeding; location alone does not settle it. The essential discipline remains to connect a claimed risk to facts.
Labeling a person powerful explains why the court should examine his capacity carefully. It does not establish how he would misuse freedom [L2]. An application can therefore address risk through specific commitments. A verified residence and reporting schedule may assist attendance. Surrender of travel documents and permission requirements can address foreign travel. A prohibition on contacting identified witnesses can protect testimony, with breach carrying consequences.
If the prosecution opposes those safeguards, it should identify the risk they leave unresolved. Equally, the defense must demonstrate that its proposed safeguards are credible and workable. Judicial discretion becomes meaningful through that exchange, rather than through the assumption that a well-known politician must either be trusted completely or confined automatically.
The ruling his defenders must answer
El-Rufai has already lost an important bail appeal. Channels Television reported that the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s exercise of discretion and rejected the appeal in CA/K/254C/2026. That decision governs the issues it determined and must be addressed in any further application. It requires the defense to identify a legally available remedy and the material that could support it, including any relevant change in circumstances.
The route to release must address that judgment and every current basis of custody. Challenging continued detention through the courts is an exercise of the rule of law, not an affront to it [R5]. The international standard reinforces the need for careful review. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treats detention awaiting trial as exceptional rather than the general rule. The Human Rights Committee’s general comment calls for an individualized assessment and consideration of alternatives, followed by periodic reconsideration where detention continues. These materials inform the analysis; they are not a Nigerian release warrant and do not establish an international ruling in El-Rufai’s favor. Their value is the demand that necessity be examined as circumstances develop, rather than presumed to remain unchanged indefinitely [L3][L4].
Bail in one case is not freedom in every case
The ICPC’s April account illustrates why precision matters. It described conditional bail in a Federal High Court proceeding alongside continued custody under a separate Kaduna State High Court process. The distinction defeats the easy assertion that every continued restriction must have defied an existing release order. It also identifies the work required: establish the complete custody position and address each order. A defendant can meet conditions in one matter and remain lawfully confined in another. An effective defense needs a coordinated remedy, with the legal basis of each remaining restraint clearly identified [R2]. Care should also be taken with the word “bailable.” An offense being eligible for bail does not guarantee unconditional release regardless of the circumstances. Conversely, the possibility of refusal does not make refusal self-justifying.
The public deserves an explanation of the distinction because both political camps can profit from confusing it. Supporters may imply that the mere existence of a bail jurisdiction ends the argument; opponents may imply that an accusation makes all confinement acceptable. The court’s task is more demanding than either position. It must evaluate the applicable law and the evidence relevant to its exercise of discretion.
A fair trial requires a capable defense
Court management belongs in this assessment as well. The ICPC’s October 15 account attributes a December adjournment in the CCTV-contract case to requests by newly appointed counsel on both sides. It would be inaccurate to attribute that interval entirely to prosecutorial obstruction. The more useful question is how the proceedings can now advance efficiently while preserving adequate preparation. Clear timetables, access to disclosed material, and timely rulings can reduce avoidable delay. Neither side should obtain an unlimited procedural advantage from the other’s need to get ready, particularly while a defendant remains confined [R4]. El-Rufai, for his part, should be held to exact compliance with any conditions lawfully imposed. His standing cannot excuse intimidation, interference, or avoidance of proceedings.
Exact compliance would give the court a practical assurance that release can preserve the trial. His political activity can be protected while conduct that genuinely threatens the trial is restrained. Conditions should be tied to an identified risk, sufficiently clear to obey, and subject to the court’s authority. A restriction drafted simply to silence criticism would require a justification that cannot be supplied by political irritation.
Reasonable bail deserves a renewed and properly supported consideration, with the prosecution addressing the actual safeguards offered and the courts accounting for the time already spent in custody. The immediate demand is for a lawful decision on necessity, capable of explaining why freedom can or cannot be secured under conditions. Tinubu’s administration should be pressed on this distinction at every stage: evidence supports a charge; present necessity supports continued custody. Neither can be supplied by contempt for the accused. If the government has a provable case, it should bring it to judgment. If enforceable conditions adequately protect that process, the prosecution should explain what lawful purpose confinement still serves. The rule of law is tested most severely when releasing an opponent would be politically inconvenient.
AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC-INTEREST ASSESSMENT · This series is entirely free. No candidate pays for coverage. Right of Reply remains open.
© 2026 PROF. MARKANTHONY NZE · PEOPLE & POLITY INC., NEW YORK · AFRICA TODAY NEWS, NEW YORK
