The former governor is looking for N10 billion in damages, alleging that the fee prevented his spouse, Aichatou Asabe, and son, Abba El-Rufai, from visiting him whereas he was in custody.
He additionally requested the courtroom to declare that his elementary rights underneath Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, stay protected regardless of his detention.
In its response, the ICPC and its chairman denied the allegations in El-Rufai’s supporting affidavit.
John Uche, a Chief Anti-Corruption Assistant in the fee’s Internal Security Support Unit, mentioned El-Rufai was being held lawfully underneath an order issued by the Federal High Court in Kaduna in case quantity FHC/KD/73C/2025.
Uche said that the fee facilitated a medical go to for El-Rufai on July 7, in line with a courtroom order permitting entry to his private doctor. He mentioned the go to was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s spouse.
According to him, the fee later obtained studies that the hospital go to had allegedly changed into a political assembly, in violation of its safety procedures.
He mentioned the event prompted the ICPC to introduce short-term restrictions on visits whereas it reviewed its safety preparations.
Uche additionally alleged that El-Rufai’s son, Abba, got here to the fee’s workplace on July 7 to go to his father however was denied entry. He claimed that Abba subsequently lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg towards its edge.
The officer maintained that the fee’s CCTV system recorded actions inside and round its premises and that the recordings had not been altered.
He additional alleged that Asabe was introduced into the ICPC premises via an unauthorised association on July 4, at about 7:35pm, after official visiting hours. According to him, some fee officers have been concerned and are going through disciplinary motion.
The ICPC mentioned it briefly suspended Asabe’s visits as a result of her alleged disregard for entry procedures offered a safety danger.
In an utility filed on September 9, El-Rufai requested the courtroom to order the fee to produce the whole, unedited CCTV recordings overlaying June 7, July 4 and July 7.
He argued that the three clips submitted by the ICPC, titled “The Scuffle,” “The Son Being Taken Away” and “Unauthorised Entry,” didn’t set up that the fee had disclosed every little thing captured by its cameras.
He additionally requested customer registers, entry and exit data, and different paperwork relating to visits by his spouse and different members of the family from June 7 till the date of the courtroom order.
In addition, he sought permission to query Sadiq Baba, who licensed the CCTV exhibit, and Uche, who swore to the fee’s counter-affidavit.
El-Rufai wished the officers to clarify how the clips have been selected, copied and authorized, whether or not the opposite recordings existed and why that they had not been produced.
He additionally requested the courtroom to direct that any footage offered by the fee be performed in open courtroom in the presence of each events and their attorneys.
The former governor argued that the lacking recordings might assist make clear disputed accounts of the incidents.
“The omitted portion of July 7 at about 14:53 shows the applicant’s son being dragged, and his leg trapped in the gutter,” he mentioned.
“The clip at about 14:54:55 shows the officer falling at a ditch. Those images contradict the account in the Counter Affidavit,” he added.
El-Rufai additional argued that the June 7 recording would show that the ICPC had invited his spouse into its premises on the primary evening of his detention.
He maintained that the July 4 footage was obligatory to check the fee’s allegation that Asabe had been “smuggled” into the ability.
The former governor additionally cited Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which gives for public courtroom proceedings, and Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, arguing that the courtroom might draw an opposed inference if related proof was withheld.
The ICPC opposed his request, insisting that the total recordings contained delicate info that would compromise the safety of its premises if displayed publicly.
The fee argued that if the courtroom thought of it obligatory to look at the whole footage, it might be performed in the choose’s chambers.
The courtroom’s ruling allows either side to current selected parts of the recordings in open courtroom, with every celebration restricted to 20 minutes, forward of the following listening to on November 3.
