El-Rufai Demands ICPC Retraction, Denies Violating Court Order Over Hospital Visit

Former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir Ahmad El-Rufai, has rejected allegations by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC) that he abused court-approved medical privileges and violated a court order, insisting that the anti-graft agency misrepresented the facts surrounding his absence from court and subsequent hospital visit.

In a statement issued yesterday by his Media Adviser, Muyiwa Adekeye, El-Rufai described the ICPC’s July 7 statement titled “El-Rufai and Medical Doctor Abuse Privilege, Violate Court Order” as inaccurate in both fact and law and called on the Commission to withdraw the allegation that he breached any court order.

The former governor maintained that his inability to appear before the court in Kaduna on July 6 was solely due to unresolved medical issues, which, according to him, had been communicated to the ICPC well before the court sitting.

According to the statement, El-Rufai’s personal physician, Professor Bello Abubakar, had visited the ICPC facility in the preceding week after coordinating with the Commission’s medical personnel but was allegedly prevented from examining his patient despite waiting for more than two hours.

It further stated that following the denied access, El-Rufai’s family formally requested that he be taken to the National Hospital, Abuja, for a medical consultation with Professor Abubakar at 5:00 p.m. on July 7, adding that the request had been conveyed to the hospital by the ICPC several days before the family became aware of the July 6 court sitting in Kaduna.

The statement argued that El-Rufai’s health condition and the unresolved medical concerns made the journey to Kaduna impossible.

Responding to the ICPC’s claim that El-Rufai declined to accompany officers to court despite having no immediate medical complaints, the former governor’s media office insisted that the Commission ignored the documented medical history and prior requests for medical attention.

It maintained that the request to see his physician was neither an afterthought nor an attempt to evade trial but a continuation of an already approved medical process.

The statement also gave its account of the July 6 court proceedings, saying the prosecution attempted to persuade the court to continue hearing the case in El-Rufai’s absence by making submissions from the Bar without calling witnesses or presenting evidence.

According to the statement, the defence objected to the procedure, arguing that such allegations ought to be presented through sworn testimony and subjected to cross-examination.

It added that the court subsequently adjourned the matter until July 15, 2026, to hear El-Rufai’s application seeking the trial judge’s recusal and to await the directive of the Chief Judge on a pending transfer petition dated June 30.

On the allegation that he violated the terms of a court-approved medical visit by meeting supporters at the National Hospital, El-Rufai denied breaching any judicial order.

The statement argued that the only applicable order was that of Justice R.M. Aikawa dated April 1, 2026, in Charge No. FHC/KD/73C/2026, which, according to the defence, granted him access to medical treatment while in custody and did not restrict persons who could meet him during such treatment.

It further contended that the ICPC itself acknowledged facilitating the hospital visit under security arrangements, maintaining that this amounted to compliance with the court order rather than a privilege granted at the Commission’s discretion.

Providing its version of events at the National Hospital, the statement alleged that while the family had requested a 5:00 p.m. appointment to minimise public attention, the ICPC unilaterally rescheduled the consultation to 10:00 a.m. without prior notice.

It said El-Rufai met privately with his physician before waiting in a public section of the hospital for about one hour while officials obtained the required medical report for his return to custody.

According to the statement, some individuals who became aware of his presence requested to greet him, while others encountered him by chance, insisting that there was no organised political gathering.

The statement argued that the circumstances did not support the ICPC’s allegation that the medical visit was transformed into a political event.

On access to medical care, El-Rufai’s legal team cited the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, popularly known as the Nelson Mandela Rules, arguing that access to healthcare and consultation with a physician of one’s choice are recognised rights rather than discretionary privileges.

The statement also warned that any future restriction on El-Rufai’s access to medical treatment, legal counsel or family members would amount to a breach of the April 1 court order and could result in contempt proceedings against the ICPC.

The former governor equally questioned the arrest of his physician, Professor Bello Abubakar, who the ICPC accused of making false statements.

The statement demanded that the Commission disclose the specific statement alleged to be false, when and to whom it was made, and whether the doctor was informed of the allegations before his arrest.

It called for Professor Abubakar’s immediate and unconditional release pending clarification of the allegations.

El-Rufai further disputed the ICPC’s assertion that it would report his alleged disobedience of court orders to the court, insisting that no order had been violated and maintaining that the only relevant court order guaranteed his right to receive medical treatment while in custody.

The former governor consequently called on the ICPC to retract the aspect of its July 7 statement alleging that he violated a court order, while reiterating his commitment to defending himself through lawful means and insisting on his constitutional rights to a fair trial, adequate medical care and due process.

The ICPC had, in a statement issued on Tuesday, alleged that El-Rufai abused court-approved medical privileges by turning a hospital visit into a political gathering and accused his physician of making false statements, leading to the doctor’s arrest.

The Commission also stated that it would bring what it described as the former governor’s disobedience of court orders to the attention of the court.