The family of Nasir El-Rufai has pushed back strongly against allegations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) that sophisticated phone-tapping equipment and sensitive security documents were recovered from his Abuja residence.
In a statement issued on March 2, 2026, and signed by his son, Mohammed Bello El-Rufai, the family dismissed the claims as false and politically motivated, accusing the anti-graft agency of waging a media campaign rather than adhering strictly to the rule of law. The statement came amid reports that the ICPC, in court filings, alleged that items capable of intercepting communications were seized during a search of the property.
According to the family, no such equipment was found. They maintained that only personal effects — including old mobile phones, storage devices and laptops — were taken from the residence, describing them as ordinary belongings of any modern household. They insisted that references to “sophisticated tapping devices” exist only in the imagination of investigators.
The statement also addressed the controversy surrounding El-Rufai’s reported refusal to answer questions during interactions with the commission. His family argued that he merely exercised his constitutional right to remain silent, stressing that such silence cannot legally be interpreted as an admission of guilt or a refusal to cooperate. They reiterated his public stance that if authorities have evidence against him, he should be formally charged and prosecuted in court.
Central to the dispute is the legality of the search itself. The family contends that the warrant used to conduct the operation was defective and fraudulently procured, alleging irregularities in the judicial process through which it was obtained. They disclosed that their legal team has already challenged the warrant in court and are seeking to have any evidence derived from the search declared invalid.
The ICPC, on its part, has defended its actions in court documents and maintains that its investigation was lawfully conducted. With both sides now entrenched in their positions, the matter appears set for judicial determination, as the courts weigh the legality of the search, the admissibility of any recovered items and the broader constitutional questions raised by the unfolding dispute.
