Proceedings in the trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, took a new turn as counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS) presented an amended charge sheet, increasing the counts from three to five. The court subsequently struck out the earlier charge and replaced it with the……
Proceedings in the trial of former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, took a new turn as counsel to the Department of State Services (DSS) presented an amended charge sheet, increasing the counts from three to five.
The court subsequently struck out the earlier charge and replaced it with the new five-count charge, to which the former governor pleaded not guilty.
Counsel to the DSS then applied for three consecutive trial dates, but the defence objected, citing the need to confer with their client who has been in the custody of multiple security agencies.
The defence also moved to argue a pending bail application filed on February 17, alongside a further affidavit. Initially, Justice Abdulmalik declined to admit the additional affidavit, noting it was not in the court’s records and cautioning against what she described as “Nollywood theatrics” over the presence of cameramen in court.
READ ALSO: Court Denies El-Rufai Bail In Money Laundering, Fraud Allegations
Following a brief stand down, proceedings resumed with the further affidavit located, while the DSS informed the court it was not opposing the bail application.Attention then shifted to a fresh application by the prosecution seeking an order to conceal the identities of two witnesses expected to testify.
The DSS urged the court to bar the names of the witnesses from public records and allow the use of pseudonyms during trial, arguing their families could be vulnerable to attacks from individuals sympathetic to the defendant.
However, the defence opposed the request through a counter-application, written address, and further affidavit, insisting it is the constitutional right of an accused person to know his accusers.
The defence also argued there was no evidence suggesting the defendant posed any threat or had a following capable of endangering witnesses, warning that granting such anonymity could prejudice the case against him.
The defence further applied for an order compelling the prosecution to provide proof of evidence to enable adequate preparation for trial, a move the prosecution opposed, maintaining that the requested documents were outside the scope of materials already filed before the court.
In addition, the defence informed the court of a separate application seeking to quash the charges, a move challenged by the prosecution on the grounds that such an application cannot be entertained after a plea has been taken.
The prosecution urged the court to dismiss the application as lacking merit, while the defence responded on points of law.
The matter continues as the court considers the various applications before it.
