By Abubakar Basiru 300lvl Mass Comm
Political admiration must never override constitutional principle. I have long regarded Nasir El-Rufai as a bold and strategic actor in Nigeria’s political arena, often describing him as “Political Maradona”. However, recent public discourse following his interview on Arise News has generated serious questions that require legal and constitutional scrutiny rather than opinionated interpretation.
At the center of the controversy is tapping into the phone of the National Security Adviser. Of course it’s known to all and sundry that the former governor of Kaduna State, Nasir El-Rufai and the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu, have been battling in the political war zone despite their past moments of friendship and togetherness.
Yet, tapping into the phone of such an important figure in any way is an illegal act and a threat to national security. The point is, if the National Security Adviser can be hunted down, what about a common man waiting for protection by the government? In any democratic state governed by law, interception of private communications is not merely a political issue; it is a legal matter with statutory and constitutional implications.
.jpeg)
Constitutional Protection of Privacy
Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, guarantees:
“The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.” This provision establishes the privacy of communication as a fundamental right. Any interference must therefore be grounded in lawful authority and due process.
The Cybercrimes Act and Unlawful Interception
The primary statutory framework regulating electronic communications and cyber offences in Nigeria is the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc.) The Act, as amended in Section 6 of the Act, provides that:
"A person who intentionally and without lawful authority intercepts any transmission of data to or from a computer system or network commits an offence." The section further prescribes penalties upon conviction, including imprisonment or fine or both. The operative phrases here are “intentionally” and “without lawful authority.”
The law does not criminalize lawful surveillance carried out pursuant to statutory powers or judicial authorization. It criminalizes interception conducted outside a legal mandate. Tapping into a phone, in contemporary legal interpretation, constitutes interception of electronic communication where it involves accessing voice or data transmissions over a communication network.
The Act criminalizes unauthorized access to computer systems and electronic communications infrastructure. Gaining access to another person’s communication device, network, or stored data without authorization constitutes an offence under the Act. Taken together, these provisions create a clear legal standard: electronic interception or monitoring must be authorized by law, which means, in the absence of such authority, the conduct attracts criminal liability.
As well, the 2024 amendment to the Cybercrimes Act did not remove these protections. Rather, it strengthened enforcement mechanisms, clarified institutional responsibilities, and reinforced Nigeria’s regulatory framework against cyber intrusion and unlawful digital surveillance. Thus, the statutory position remains consistent, and unauthorized interception of electronic communication is prohibited.
Consequently, Malam Nasir El-Rufai and his cohorts’ action of tapping into the phone of the National Security Adviser as he publicized during his interview with Arise News, according to the Federal High Court of Nigeria, is an offence contrary to and punishable under section 12 (1) and section 27 (b) of the Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, etc) Amendment, Act, 2024 and section 131 (2) Nigerian Communications Act 2003.
National Security and Legal Boundaries
It is important to distinguish between lawful state surveillance and private or unauthorized interception. Security agencies may conduct surveillance within the confines of statutory powers and judicial oversight. However, individuals, regardless of political stature, do not possess inherent authority to intercept communications of public officials.
The office of the National Security Adviser handles highly sensitive intelligence and security coordination. Any unlawful interception of such communications would not only violate statutory provisions but could also undermine national security infrastructure.
The principle at stake transcends personalities. In a constitutional democracy, the rule of law requires consistency. If unlawful surveillance is condemnable when carried out by political opponents, it must also be condemnable when associated with individuals one admires.
Political maturity demands the capacity to separate admiration from accountability. The Cybercrimes Act establishes clear legal boundaries. The Constitution guarantees privacy, and both instruments reflect Nigeria’s commitment to regulated governance rather than arbitrary power.
Ultimately, the sustainability of democratic institutions depends on adherence to legal standards. Where allegations of unlawful interception arise, they must be examined through the lens of statutory law, constitutional rights, and due process. No individual stands above the law, and no office is beyond scrutiny.
Nasir El-Rufai and anyone involved in tapping into the phone of the National Security Adviser should be punished based on the provisions of the law. The concern is, if the phone of the national security advisor is not secured, then who has security in Nigeria? That’s why it’s a threat to national security.