The former governor is looking for N10 billion in damages, alleging that the fee prevented his spouse, Aichatou Asabe, and son, Abba El-Rufai, from visiting him whereas he was in custody.
He additionally requested the court docket to declare that his basic rights underneath Part IV of the 1999 Constitution, as amended, stay protected regardless of 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 fee’s Internal Security Support Unit, mentioned El-Rufai was being held lawfully underneath an order issued by the Federal High Court in Kaduna in case quantity FHC/KD/73C/2025.
Uche acknowledged that the fee facilitated a medical go to for El-Rufai on July 7, in line with a court docket order permitting entry to his private doctor. He mentioned the go to was accompanied by ICPC officers and El-Rufai’s spouse.
According to him, the fee later acquired reviews that the hospital go to had allegedly was a political assembly, in violation of its safety procedures.
He mentioned the event prompted the ICPC to introduce momentary restrictions on visits whereas it reviewed its safety preparations.
Uche additionally alleged that El-Rufai’s son, Abba, got here to the fee’s workplace on July 7 to go to his father however was denied entry. He claimed that Abba subsequently lay in a gutter and repeatedly rubbed his leg towards its edge.
The officer maintained that the fee’s CCTV system recorded actions inside and round its premises and that the recordings had not been altered.
He additional alleged that Asabe was introduced into the ICPC premises by way of an unauthorised association on July 4, at about 7:35pm, after official visiting hours. According to him, some fee officers have been concerned and are going through disciplinary motion.
The ICPC mentioned it quickly suspended Asabe’s visits as a result of her alleged disregard for entry procedures offered a safety threat.
In an utility filed on September 9, El-Rufai requested the court docket to order the fee to produce the whole, unedited CCTV recordings masking 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,” didn’t set up that the fee had disclosed all the things captured by its cameras.
He additionally requested customer registers, entry and exit information, and different paperwork relating to visits by his spouse and different relations from June 7 till the date of the court docket order.
In addition, he sought permission to query Sadiq Baba, who licensed the CCTV exhibit, and Uche, who swore to the fee’s counter-affidavit.
El-Rufai wished the officers to clarify how the clips have been selected, copied and authorized, whether or not the opposite recordings existed and why they’d not been produced.
He additionally requested the court docket to direct that any footage offered by the fee be performed in open court docket in the presence of each events and their attorneys.
The former governor argued that the lacking recordings might assist make clear 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 mentioned.
“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 additional argued that the June 7 recording would show that the ICPC had invited his spouse into its premises on the primary night time of his detention.
He maintained that the July 4 footage was mandatory to take a look at the fee’s allegation that Asabe had been “smuggled” into the power.
The former governor additionally cited Section 36(3) of the Constitution, which gives for public court docket proceedings, and Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, arguing that the court docket might draw an antagonistic inference if related proof was withheld.
The ICPC opposed his request, insisting that the complete recordings contained delicate data that would compromise the safety of its premises if displayed publicly.
The fee argued that if the court docket thought of it mandatory to look at the whole footage, it could possibly be performed in the decide’s chambers.
The court docket’s ruling allows either side to current selected parts of the recordings in open court docket, with every get together restricted to 20 minutes, forward of the subsequent listening to on November 3.
