The continued detention of former Kaduna State Governor Nasir El-Rufai by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) has renewed debate over the constitutional rights of suspects, the limits of pre-trial detention and the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to ensure that criminal investigations do not result in prolonged deprivation of liberty.
El-Rufai has been in ICPC custody since February 2026 amid investigations into alleged financial misconduct and separate criminal proceedings over the alleged interception of telephone communications involving National Security Adviser Nuhu Ribadu.
His continued detention has drawn criticism from political figures and supporters, who argue that he should not remain in custody for an extended period while the cases against him are being determined.
However, the ICPC maintains that his detention is backed by court orders, while the courts have considered several applications relating to his bail and fundamental rights.
The dispute raises important legal questions: How long can a suspect be detained before trial? Does a court-approved remand automatically make prolonged detention lawful? And what remedies are available to a person who believes their detention violates their constitutional rights?
Section 35 of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria guarantees every person the right to personal liberty. It provides that a person can only be deprived of that liberty in circumstances permitted by law, including lawful arrest on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence.
The Constitution also requires that an arrested or detained person be informed in writing, within 24 hours, of the facts and grounds for the arrest or detention.
Under Section 35(4), a person arrested or detained on reasonable suspicion of committing an offence must be brought before a court within a reasonable time.
Where a court of competent jurisdiction is within a 40-kilometre radius, a reasonable time is generally defined as one day. In other circumstances, it is two days, or a longer period considered reasonable by the court.
The Constitution further provides that a person who has not been tried within two months of arrest or detention, where they are in custody or are not entitled to bail, should be released either unconditionally or under reasonable conditions to ensure their appearance at trial.
For a person released on bail, the corresponding period is three months.
However, these provisions do not mean that every suspect must automatically be released after two months. The circumstances of the case, the applicable laws and any relevant court orders must be considered. The Constitution also contains an exception concerning people detained on reasonable suspicion of committing capital offences.
Section 36(4) separately guarantees the right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time, while Section 36(5) establishes the presumption of innocence until guilt is proved.
These provisions are central to the debate over El-Rufai’s detention.
The ICPC has said that El-Rufai’s detention was authorised by a court under the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) 2015.
According to the commission, an initial 14-day remand order was granted on February 19, 2026, to enable it to investigate allegations, including money laundering and abuse of office. The commission subsequently obtained a further 14-day extension on March 5.
The ICPC also said that El-Rufai’s legal team challenged the remand order but that the application was dismissed on March 9.
In March, the commission maintained that the former governor remained in lawful custody under the court order and that it was complying with the court-approved process.
The existence of a remand order is significant because it provides a judicial basis for detention during an investigation. However, it does not remove the constitutional protections available to the detainee or prevent the courts from reviewing the legality and circumstances of continued detention.
The question is therefore not simply whether a court initially authorised detention, but whether the subsequent legal requirements and applicable court orders have been respected.
El-Rufai has made several attempts to secure his release on bail in the ICPC case.
On April 14, 2026, the Federal High Court in Kaduna granted him bail in the sum of ₦200 million, subject to conditions that included two sureties. One was required to be a serving or retired federal government official not below Grade Level 15, while the other had to be a recognised traditional ruler.
The court also ordered the sureties to submit their passports and directed El-Rufai to attend all court proceedings.
However, the judge ordered that he remain in ICPC custody until he fulfilled the bail conditions. Consequently, the bail order did not immediately secure his release.
In June, the Kaduna State High Court rejected another bail application filed on medical grounds. The ICPC said the court found the medical report submitted in support of the application unreliable after the National Hospital, Abuja, disowned it.
The court directed the commission to allow El-Rufai access to his personal medical physicians and to escort him to medical facilities within Nigeria when required.
These decisions illustrate the distinction between being granted bail and being released from custody. Where a court imposes conditions, a defendant may remain detained until those conditions are met.
However, the legality of continued detention can still be challenged through appropriate legal proceedings.
El-Rufai has challenged aspects of his detention and the actions of the authorities.
In March, his lawyers accused the ICPC of abusing court processes and argued that his continued detention was unlawful. They sought judicial intervention over the commission’s handling of the remand process.
He has also filed a fundamental-rights suit against the ICPC, the Inspector-General of Police and the Attorney-General of the Federation, challenging the legality of actions taken against him.
In a separate ₦10 billion suit filed in August, El-Rufai alleged that the ICPC had repeatedly denied his wife and son access to him while he was in custody. The allegations remain subject to judicial determination.
The former governor is also facing a separate case brought by the Department of State Services (DSS) over the alleged interception of Ribadu’s telephone communications.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges. On September 22, the Federal High Court in Abuja adjourned the case until October 26 to rule on his no-case submission, in which his lawyers argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a case requiring him to enter a defence.
His ₦1 billion fundamental-rights suit against the ICPC, police and Attorney-General was adjourned until October 27.
The separate proceedings should not be confused: the DSS case concerns alleged telephone interception, while the ICPC proceedings relate to allegations of financial misconduct and other offences.
El-Rufai’s continued detention has attracted criticism from political figures, including Peter Obi and Dele Momodu.
Obi, through his media aide, Idris Zekeri, has called for the matter to be resolved through due process. He argued that any allegations against the former governor should be established in court rather than leaving him in detention for an extended period.
Momodu, an African Democratic Congress chieftain, also criticised the detention during an appearance on Channels Television’s Morning Brief on September 25.
He described El-Rufai as a “prisoner of conscience” and alleged that the former governor’s detention was politically motivated. Momodu also defended the ADC’s decision to appoint El-Rufai deputy chairman of its presidential campaign council despite his continued detention.
These are the views of the politicians and should be distinguished from findings made by a court. The ICPC has rejected suggestions that the detention is unlawful, maintaining that it is acting under judicial authority.
A court order authorising detention does not mean that every subsequent action by the detaining authority is automatically lawful.
The Constitution protects personal liberty and provides remedies for unlawful arrest or detention. Under Section 35(6), a person who is unlawfully arrested or detained is entitled to compensation and a public apology from the appropriate authority or person.
A detainee may also approach the courts to challenge the legality of their detention, the conditions imposed on their release or alleged violations of other fundamental rights.
In El-Rufai’s case, the courts have already considered several applications, including bail requests and challenges to the detention process. Further proceedings will determine the outstanding issues raised by his legal team.
The legal distinction is between detention authorised by a court and detention that continues in compliance with the law. Whether the authorities have met their obligations in this particular case is a matter for the courts to determine.
The controversy surrounding El-Rufai’s detention highlights the tension between the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to investigate alleged offences and the constitutional rights of individuals under investigation.
Anti-corruption agencies have a duty to investigate credible allegations and bring cases before the courts. At the same time, suspects retain the right to personal liberty, legal representation and a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
Prolonged detention can raise serious legal concerns, particularly where investigations or court proceedings experience repeated delays. But the length of detention alone does not establish that it is unlawful; the applicable legal provisions, court orders and circumstances must also be examined.
For El-Rufai, the immediate legal questions include the status of his bail conditions, the outcome of his pending applications and the progress of the criminal proceedings against him.
Ultimately, the courts will determine the legality of the actions challenged by the former governor and whether the authorities have complied with their constitutional and statutory obligations.
Until the allegations are proven in court, El-Rufai remains entitled to the presumption of innocence.