A prosecution witness in the ongoing trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, has alleged that $600,000 was earmarked to ‘settle’ officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and intermediaries in connection with investigations involving companies linked to the case.
The court proceedings lasted eight hours, from 12:26 p.m. to 8:18 p.m., including about two hours of audio playback featuring recorded conversations between El-Rufai and his suspected associates.
The witness, Segun Kayode, a forensic investigator with the State Security Service (SSS), made the allegation while testifying as Prosecution Witness 1 (PW1) before the Kaduna State High Court sitting in Kawo, Kaduna, on Tuesday, October 13, 2026. The proceedings were presided over by Justice Darius Khobo.
According to Kayode’s testimony, “$500,000 and $100,000 were earmarked for the payments,” while forensic audio recordings allegedly captured conversations involving El-Rufai and some of his suspected associates discussing how to carry out the plan.
Kayode further alleged that the recordings contained discussions involving AU Mustapha (SAN), Jimi Lawal and Bashir El-Rufai, among others, concerning efforts to frustrate an ongoing EFCC investigation into a company identified as Singularity.
The witness told the court that, according to the alleged conversations, Mustapha and Lawal were directed to meet one Ahmadu Sule to obtain a template previously used to liquidate another company. The template was allegedly intended to be applied to Singularity.
He further alleged that the discussions included plans to liquidate Singularity in Nigeria and Mauritius, where the company was reportedly under investigation by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).
Kayode also alleged that the individuals involved discussed plans to prevent the EFCC from investigating IHS, which he said was listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
The witness told the court that the systems used in the forensic investigation were protected. The allegations formed part of the evidence presented by the prosecution in the case against El-Rufai.
Defence Objects To Witness Testimony
Earlier, counsel to El-Rufai, Paul Erokoro (SAN), objected to the testimony of the prosecution witness on the grounds that his name and summary of evidence were not included in the prosecution’s proof of evidence.
The defence argued that the omission violated the defendant’s right to a fair hearing, insisting that it was entitled to know the case it was expected to answer at trial.
However, counsel to the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Ayodeji Adedipe (SAN), argued that the witness had been subpoenaed by the court and that the omission of his name and summary of evidence from the proof of evidence did not automatically render his testimony inadmissible.
Adedipe told the court that the subpoena was issued and signed by the court on June 30, 2026. He added that the defence would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness after his testimony.
He also cited judicial authorities in support of the prosecution’s position.
In response, Erokoro maintained that the issue was not whether the witness could testify, but whether the defence had been adequately informed of the evidence it was expected to confront.
He argued that the prosecution was required to serve the defence with the subpoena to enable it to prepare adequately for the witness’s testimony.
Erokoro also relied on Section 210 of the applicable Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2017, citing relevant judicial authorities in support of his submission.
Court Overrules Defence Objection
In its ruling, the court said it had carefully considered the objection and the submissions of both counsel.
Justice Khobo observed that PW1 was absent from the list of prosecution witnesses and that the summary of his evidence was also not contained in the proof of evidence.
However, the court held that the records established that PW1 was a subpoenaed witness, relying on the court-signed subpoena dated June 30, 2026.
The judge agreed with Adedipe’s submission that the omission of a subpoenaed witness from the proof of evidence did not automatically make the witness’s testimony inadmissible, provided the defence was allowed to cross-examine him.
The court further held that the defence’s concerns about its right to a fair hearing could be addressed by allowing it to cross-examine the witness after his testimony.
Consequently, Justice Khobo overruled the objection, ruling that the name and summary of evidence of PW1 were not required to be included in the proof of evidence because he was a court-subpoenaed witness.
The court subsequently directed the witness to continue with his testimony.
Court Directs Defence To Obtain Certified Evidence
After Kayode submitted a hard copy of his findings to the court clerk, the defence counsel argued that the document should have been served on his client earlier to allow him sufficient time to study it.
Justice Khobo, however, ruled that the defence could obtain a certified true copy (CTC) of the evidence presented by PW1 as Exhibit 1 for examination.
The court adjourned the matter until November 30 and December 1, 2026, for the continuation of cross-examination, as agreed by both prosecution and defence counsel.
The proceedings ended at 8:18 p.m.
The case followed a petition by the Kaduna State House of Assembly to the ICPC over the alleged diversion and mismanagement of more than N423 billion in public funds during El-Rufai’s eight-year administration as governor of Kaduna State.
The allegations have since been challenged in court.
