The former governor is seeking N10 billion in damages, alleging that the commission prevented his wife, Aichatou Asabe, and son, Abba El-Rufai, from visiting him while he was in custody.
He also asked the court to declare that his fundamental rights under Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, remain protected despite 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 commission’s Internal Security Support Unit, said El-Rufai was being held lawfully under an order issued by the Federal High Court in Kaduna in case number FHC/KD/73C/2025.
Uche stated that the commission facilitated a medical visit for El-Rufai on July 7, in line with a court order allowing access to his personal physician. He said the visit was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s wife.
According to him, the commission later received reports that the hospital visit had allegedly turned into a political meeting, in violation of its security procedures.
He said the development prompted the ICPC to introduce temporary restrictions on visits while it reviewed its security arrangements.
Uche also alleged that El-Rufai’s son, Abba, came to the commission’s office on July 7 to visit his father but was denied entry. He claimed that Abba subsequently lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg against its edge.
The officer maintained that the commission’s CCTV system recorded activities within and around its premises and that the recordings had not been altered.
He further alleged that Asabe was brought into the ICPC premises through an unauthorised arrangement on July 4, at about 7:35pm, after official visiting hours. According to him, some commission officers were involved and are facing disciplinary action.
The ICPC said it temporarily suspended Asabe’s visits because her alleged disregard for access procedures presented a security risk.
In an application filed on September 9, El-Rufai asked the court to order the commission to produce the complete, unedited CCTV recordings covering 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,” did not establish that the commission had disclosed everything captured by its cameras.
He also requested visitor registers, entry and exit records, and other documents relating to visits by his wife and other family members from June 7 until the date of the court order.
In addition, he sought permission to question Sadiq Baba, who certified the CCTV exhibit, and Uche, who swore to the commission’s counter-affidavit.
El-Rufai wanted the officials to explain how the clips were selected, copied and certified, whether the other recordings existed and why they had not been produced.
He also asked the court to direct that any footage presented by the commission be played in open court in the presence of both parties and their lawyers.
The former governor argued that the missing recordings could help clarify 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 said.
“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 further argued that the June 7 recording would show that the ICPC had invited his wife into its premises on the first night of his detention.
He maintained that the July 4 footage was necessary to test the commission’s allegation that Asabe had been “smuggled” into the facility.
The former governor also cited Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which provides for public court proceedings, and Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, arguing that the court could draw an adverse inference if relevant evidence was withheld.
The ICPC opposed his request, insisting that the full recordings contained sensitive information that could compromise the security of its premises if displayed publicly.
The commission argued that if the court considered it necessary to examine the complete footage, it could be played in the judge’s chambers.
The court’s ruling allows both sides to present selected portions of the recordings in open court, with each party limited to 20 minutes, ahead of the next hearing on November 3.
