A’Court rejects El-Rufai’s bail application

The Court of Appeal in Kaduna decided that El-Rufai had not shown fresh facts or special circumstances to justify overturning the refusal of bail. It unanimously dismissed his appeal and affirmed the Kaduna State High Court’s ruling of June 10, 2026. The decision concerns pretrial release, not guilt.

The appellate court accepted that the trial judge acted within judicial discretion. It relied on affidavit evidence from both sides, including concerns about possible interference with justice and uncertainty over whether El-Rufai’s return from his mother’s burial was entirely voluntary. The court also noted that photographs mentioned in his affidavit were never attached.

El-Rufai therefore remains in ICPC custody as the prosecution continues. The trial must be accelerated, with day-to-day proceedings as far as practicable. The court said he may seek bail again if the prosecution later fails to pursue the case diligently.

The appellate panel had three judges, and all reached the same conclusion. They unanimously dismissed El-Rufai’s appeal and affirmed the Kaduna State High Court’s refusal of his fresh bail application. The lead judgment came from Justice Onyekachi Aja Otisi, while Justices Abimbola Obaseki-Adejumo and Lateef Ganiyu concurred.

A unanimous judgment means every judge on the panel agreed with the result and the main reasoning. There was no split decision and no judge recorded a disagreement. That gives the ruling a clear appellate outcome, although it does not itself decide whether El-Rufai committed the alleged offences.

The unanimous decision means the lower court’s bail ruling remains in effect. El-Rufai stays in custody, while the criminal trial is to be heard on an accelerated, day-to-day basis as far as practicable. The article also says he may return to the trial court for bail consideration if prosecution delays emerge.

Bail is a court-approved release from custody while a criminal case continues. It allows an accused person to remain outside detention under conditions set by the court. Bail is not a declaration of innocence or guilt. It manages custody during the period before a final verdict.

A court can refuse bail when it finds that release could create serious risks. These may include interfering with witnesses or evidence, obstructing proceedings, or failing to return to court. In this case, the appellate court examined affidavit evidence about possible interference with justice and uncertainty about El-Rufai’s movements during his burial attendance. It found no fresh or compelling reason to reverse the lower court.

The refusal does not mean El-Rufai has been convicted. Justice Otisi expressly stressed that he remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. The immediate result is continued custody and an accelerated trial. If the prosecution later fails to proceed diligently, the article says El-Rufai can ask the trial court to reconsider bail.

The prosecution argued that releasing El-Rufai could affect the course of justice. It cited public remarks during a televised interview about defending his political legacy against people seeking to criminalise him. It also alleged that he admitted during an Arise Television interview on April 26, 2026, to wiretapping the National Security Adviser’s telephone line.

The courts also examined whether El-Rufai would be difficult to keep in custody or ensure at future proceedings. He argued that returning after his mother’s burial showed he was not a flight risk. The prosecution replied that security agents accompanied and closely monitored him. The appellate court said the circumstances did not prove his return was entirely voluntary.

The court further noted that photographs referenced in his affidavit were not attached to the bail application. Therefore, the trial judge could not speculate about what they showed. These points supported the conclusion that no fresh circumstances justified changing the earlier bail decision, while leaving guilt for trial.

The order for an accelerated hearing means the criminal trial should proceed quickly rather than face unnecessary delay. The appellate court upheld a direction for proceedings to take place on a day-to-day basis as far as practicable. This keeps the case moving while El-Rufai remains in the custody of the ICPC.

The court did not find evidence that the prosecution had failed to pursue the case diligently. That finding supported continuing the accelerated-hearing order. It also means the present custody arrangement and the trial schedule remain unchanged after the appeal. The order concerns the conduct of the case, not a finding that El-Rufai is guilty.

The next practical step is continued prosecution and daily hearings where possible. The arrangement could change if circumstances change or if the prosecution does not proceed diligently. Justice Otisi said El-Rufai could return to the trial court to seek further consideration of bail in that situation. The article does not give a specific trial completion date.

El-Rufai used his conduct after his mother’s burial to argue that he could be trusted to return to custody. He had been released to attend the burial and then came back into detention. In his view, that showed he was not a flight risk and was a compelling reason to grant bail.

The prosecution gave a different account. It said security agents accompanied him and closely monitored him throughout the burial period. The appellate court also noted that photographs allegedly showing him at funeral prayers in Abuja were mentioned in his affidavit but were not attached to the application. The trial judge therefore could not rely on them or speculate about their contents.

The appellate court upheld the conclusion that El-Rufai had not proved his return was entirely voluntary. As a result, the burial episode did not establish fresh circumstances requiring bail. He remains in custody, although the court’s decision does not determine guilt and leaves open a later bail request if prosecution diligence declines.

Courts must make practical decisions about custody before a criminal trial ends. To decide bail, they can examine affidavit evidence and allegations relevant to risks such as interference with justice or failure to remain available. That limited assessment helps determine whether release is appropriate while the case continues.

In El-Rufai’s case, the court considered public remarks, the prosecution’s alleged wiretapping admission, and the circumstances of his return after the burial. It evaluated those matters only to decide whether the lower court had properly refused bail. Justice Otisi said the trial court’s assessment of possible interference did not constitute a pronouncement of guilt.

The separate safeguard is the presumption of innocence. The appellate court expressly stated that El-Rufai remains presumed innocent until proven guilty. The bail ruling therefore keeps him in custody without deciding the criminal charges. The prosecution must still prove its case at trial, while El-Rufai can challenge the evidence and potentially seek bail again if circumstances change.