Nigeria woke up to yet another political thunderclap when former Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai, openly admitted during an interview on ARISE Television that he and his associates listened to the phone conversations of the National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu.
Not whispered in a private meeting.
Not leaked in a secret memo.
But declared on live television.
He called it “technically illegal.” Then shrugged it off with a claim that governments “do it all the time.”
That single statement detonated a national debate. If a former governor can admit to tapping the phone of Nigeria’s top security official on live TV, what does that say about privacy, power, and the rule of law in Africa’s largest democracy? Are wiretaps now political tools? Is national security a justification — or a convenient cover?
Shortly after the explosive interview, the presidency, under Bola Tinubu, responded through his Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, Bayo Onanuga, calling for a thorough investigation and warning that no one is above the law.
But beyond the political fireworks lies a deeper, more dangerous question: What exactly does Nigerian law prescribe for tapping another person’s phone?
Here are five constitutional and statutory consequences that could follow such an admission.
1. Violation of the Right to Privacy (1999 Constitution)
Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria guarantees the privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications.
Phone tapping without lawful authorization is a direct assault on this constitutional right.
While the Constitution itself does not list a prison term, it forms the legal foundation for civil lawsuits and criminal prosecution under related laws.
Any victim of unlawful interception can approach the court to seek enforcement of their fundamental rights — and courts have awarded damages in privacy breach cases.
In plain terms: Unlawful phone interception is not just immoral — it is unconstitutional.
2. Criminal Liability Under the Cybercrimes Act (2015)
The Cybercrimes (Prohibition, Prevention, Etc.) Act criminalizes unlawful interception of electronic communications.
If a person intentionally intercepts non-public transmissions without authorization, they may face:
Imprisonment
Heavy fines
Or both
The severity depends on the circumstances, including intent and national security implications.
This means phone tapping is not merely political drama — it is potentially a federal offense.
3. Charges Under the Nigerian Communications Act (2003)
The Nigerian Communications Act regulates telecommunications in Nigeria and criminalizes unauthorized access or interference with communication systems.
Anyone found guilty of unlawfully accessing telecom infrastructure can face:
Significant fines
Imprisonment
Forfeiture of equipment used in the offense
If interception facilities were used, investigators could trace the technological footprint — and that opens an entirely new legal battlefield.
4. Conspiracy and National Security Offenses
If more than one person was involved, prosecutors could explore conspiracy charges under the Criminal Code.
Even more troubling:
When the subject of interception is the National Security Adviser — one of the most sensitive offices in Nigeria — the case could potentially escalate into national security territory.
That transforms the issue from “private snooping” into something far more dangerous: An alleged breach of state security.
5. Civil Damages and Personal Liability
Beyond criminal prosecution, the alleged victim can sue personally for damages.
In cases of unlawful surveillance, courts may award:
Compensatory damages
Exemplary damages
Public apology orders
Such suits can financially and reputationally wound even the most powerful political figure.
The Bigger, Wilder Question
Here’s where the story turns truly combustible.
If a former governor can casually admit on television that someone tapped the NSA’s phone and relayed the content — what does that imply?
Do private political actors have surveillance capabilities?
Are intelligence tools circulating outside official channels?
Is phone tapping a shadow weapon in Nigeria’s political warfare?
And perhaps most unsettling:
If leaders claim “the government does it all the time,” does that normalize illegality — or expose a culture of unchecked surveillance?
This controversy is no longer just about one man’s statement. It is about the fragile boundary between power and law.
Because in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law is supposed to be supreme.
Also Read: El-Rufai Speaks on ICPC Letter, Claims Tinubu Government Targeting Him
The presidency’s call for investigation signals that this may not fade quietly. If pursued rigorously, the case could redefine how surveillance is handled in Nigeria. If ignored, it could send a different message — that power protects itself.
Either way, one thing is certain:
When phone lines become political battlegrounds, democracy itself is on the call.