The investigator, Segun Kayode, made the allegation on Tuesday while testifying as the first prosecution witness in El-Rufai’s ongoing trial before Justice Darius Khobo of the Kaduna State High Court in Kawo.
Kayode told the court that forensic audio recordings captured conversations allegedly involving El-Rufai and suspected associates discussing efforts to frustrate an EFCC investigation into a company identified as Singularity.
According to the witness, the recordings indicated that $500,000 and an additional $100,000 had been earmarked for the alleged payments.
He said the conversations mentioned a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), another individual and Bashir El-Rufai.
Kayode further alleged that the senior lawyer and the other individual were directed to meet Ahmadu Sule to obtain a template previously used to liquidate another company, with the intention of applying a similar process to Singularity.
The witness said the discussions included proposals to liquidate the company in Nigeria and Mauritius. He also referred to an investigation by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit and alleged conversations about preventing an EFCC inquiry into a company he described as listed on the New York Stock Exchange.
The allegations form part of the prosecution’s case and have not been established by the court.
The hearing lasted nearly eight hours, from 12.26pm to 8.18pm, with approximately two hours devoted to playing the audio recordings.
Earlier, El-Rufai’s lead counsel, Paul Erokoro, SAN, objected to Kayode giving evidence, arguing that the witness’s name and a summary of his proposed testimony were missing from the prosecution’s proof of evidence.
Erokoro said the omission affected his client’s right to a fair hearing, arguing that the defence needed adequate notice of the evidence it would be expected to answer.
However, counsel for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Ayodeji Adedipe, SAN, said Kayode had been subpoenaed and that the omission did not automatically render his testimony inadmissible.
Adedipe told the court that the subpoena had been issued and signed on June 30, 2026, adding that the defence would have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
Erokoro maintained that the objection concerned the defence’s ability to prepare adequately rather than the witness’s eligibility to testify.
Citing Section 210 of the applicable Administration of Criminal Justice Law, 2017, he argued that the subpoena should have been served on the defence.
In his ruling, Justice Khobo acknowledged that Kayode’s name and summary of evidence were absent from the proof of evidence but said court records confirmed that the witness had been subpoenaed.
The judge held that the omission did not automatically make the testimony inadmissible, provided the defence retained the opportunity to cross-examine him.
After Kayode submitted a hard copy of his findings, the defence again objected, arguing that the document should have been supplied earlier to allow sufficient time for examination.
The court admitted the document as Exhibit One and ruled that the defence could obtain a certified true copy.
Following agreement between the parties, Justice Khobo adjourned the case until November 30 and December 1, 2026, for the continuation of cross-examination.
El-Rufai arrived at the court at about 11.50am amid tight security, accompanied by Isah Ashiru, the African Democratic Congress (ADC) governorship candidate in Kaduna State.
His appearance followed an order directing the ICPC to produce him for the resumed hearing.
The proceedings came days after the Court of Appeal in Kaduna dismissed El-Rufai’s challenge to the High Court’s refusal to grant him bail.
In its October 9 judgment, the appellate court held that the former governor had not established sufficient grounds to overturn the decision.
El-Rufai has been in ICPC custody since February 18, 2026, over allegations of financial misconduct relating to his administration of Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023.
The latest hearing focused on the prosecution’s forensic evidence and the admissibility of the witness’s testimony, with cross-examination scheduled to continue at the next sitting.
0 Comments
DISCLAIMER
The views and opinions expressed on this platform as comments were freely made by each person under his or her own volition or responsibility and were neither suggested nor dictated by the owners of News PLATFORM or any of their contracted staff. So we take no liability whatsoever for such comments.
Please take note!