$600,000 Bribery Allegation Rocks El-Rufai Trial as Investigator Details Suspected Plot to Frustrate EFCC Probe

A forensic investigator with Nigeria’s State Security Service (SSS) has told a Kaduna State High Court that former Kaduna State Governor, Nasir El-Rufai, and some of his associates allegedly earmarked $600,000 to settle officials of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) and intermediaries.

The allegation, presented by prosecution witness Segun Kayode, has raised fresh questions about alleged attempts to interfere with anti-corruption investigations, the integrity of enforcement institutions and the potential use of corporate restructuring to frustrate financial crime probes.

According to a report, Kayode made the allegation while testifying as the first prosecution witness in the ongoing proceedings before Justice Darius Khobo of the Kaduna State High Court, sitting in Kawo.

The investigator told the court that the alleged $600,000 was divided into two portions: $500,000 and $100,000, reportedly intended for payments to EFCC officials and intermediaries.

Kayode said forensic audio recordings captured conversations involving El-Rufai and some individuals suspected of being associated with him. According to his testimony, the discussions concerned alleged efforts to frustrate an EFCC investigation into a company identified as Singularity.

The allegations remain matters for judicial determination and have not been established as proven facts.

Audio recordings at the centre of prosecution evidence

During the proceedings, which lasted nearly eight hours, the court reportedly spent approximately two hours listening to the recorded conversations presented by the investigator.

Kayode named a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, A.U. Mustapha; Jimi Lawal; and Bashir El-Rufai among the individuals allegedly mentioned in the conversations.

The witness further alleged that Mustapha and Lawal were directed to meet an individual identified as Ahmadu Sule to obtain a template previously used to liquidate another company. The alleged objective, according to the testimony, was to apply a similar process to Singularity.

Kayode also told the court that the conversations allegedly included discussions about liquidating the company in Nigeria and Mauritius, where it was reportedly under investigation by the Nigerian Financial Intelligence Unit (NFIU).

The investigator further alleged that the recordings contained discussions about preventing the EFCC from investigating IHS, which he described as listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

The court will have to assess the evidence, including the recordings and the investigator’s findings, as the trial progresses.

Corporate liquidation under compliance scrutiny

The allegations concerning Singularity place corporate restructuring and liquidation under renewed scrutiny, particularly where such actions occur alongside investigations into suspected financial misconduct.

Company liquidation is a legitimate legal process when undertaken for lawful commercial purposes. However, where investigators suspect that corporate restructuring may be intended to conceal assets, frustrate regulatory scrutiny or obstruct an investigation, the circumstances may warrant closer examination by relevant authorities.

For compliance officers, the case highlights the importance of assessing the purpose and timing of significant corporate changes, identifying beneficial owners, preserving relevant records and escalating suspicious activity in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements.

The reported reference to Mauritius also highlights the cross-border dimension of financial investigations. Where companies, assets or transactions span multiple jurisdictions, effective oversight may depend on information-sharing arrangements and cooperation between competent authorities.

The testimony, however, does not by itself establish that Singularity was liquidated to conceal assets or that any party committed a financial crime through a corporate transaction.

Alleged payments raise anti-bribery concerns

The alleged earmarking of funds for public officials, if established, would raise serious anti-bribery and public-sector integrity concerns.

Anti-corruption frameworks generally prohibit offering or providing improper benefits to influence the actions of public officials. Financial institutions and other regulated entities are also expected to apply appropriate controls to identify and manage exposure to bribery, corruption and the movement of potentially illicit funds.

From a compliance perspective, allegations of this nature underscore the importance of monitoring suspicious payments, examining the economic purpose of transactions, identifying the parties who ultimately benefit from financial arrangements and maintaining appropriate escalation procedures.

The reported sums cannot, however, be treated as confirmed payments or recovered proceeds. The investigator’s testimony concerned funds allegedly earmarked for the proposed payments.

Defence challenges witness disclosure

The proceedings also featured a dispute over the prosecution’s disclosure of its evidence.

El-Rufai’s lead counsel, Paul Erokoro (SAN), objected to Kayode’s testimony, arguing that the witness’s name and summary of evidence had not been included in the prosecution’s proof of evidence.

The defence maintained that the omission undermined its ability to prepare adequately and infringed on the defendant’s right to a fair hearing.

Counsel for the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), Ayodeji Adedipe (SAN), argued that Kayode had been subpoenaed by the court and that the omission did not automatically render his testimony inadmissible. He also maintained that the defence would have an opportunity to cross-examine the witness.

Justice Khobo acknowledged that the witness’s name and summary of evidence were absent from the proof of evidence but ruled that the omission did not automatically make the testimony inadmissible, provided the defence was allowed to cross-examine him.

The judge consequently overruled the objection and directed the witness to continue testifying.

When the investigator submitted a hard copy of his findings, the defence complained that the document should have been served earlier. The court ruled that the defence could obtain a certified true copy of the document admitted as Exhibit One for examination.

The case was adjourned until November 30 and December 1, 2026, for continuation of cross-examination.

Broader financial misconduct allegations

The latest proceedings form part of wider legal challenges facing the former governor over allegations relating to his administration of Kaduna State between 2015 and 2023.

The Kaduna State House of Assembly had petitioned the ICPC over alleged diversion and mismanagement of more than ₦423bn in public funds during El-Rufai’s eight-year tenure.

The former governor is also facing separate proceedings involving allegations of financial misconduct, abuse of office and other offences. These matters are distinct from the specific allegations presented by Kayode in the current proceedings.

El-Rufai has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to charges against him. The allegations remain subject to the judicial process.

Compliance lessons: evidence, transparency and accountability

For financial institutions, corporate entities and public-sector compliance teams, the case illustrates several key risk areas: alleged bribery of enforcement officials, possible interference with investigations, corporate restructuring during regulatory scrutiny and the challenges of investigating activity across multiple jurisdictions.

It also reinforces the importance of due process. Allegations must be investigated through lawful procedures, evidence must be tested in court, and defendants must be afforded the opportunity to challenge the case against them.

As cross-examination continues, the court proceedings are expected to further examine the investigator’s evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged payments and corporate arrangements.

For Nigeria’s anti-corruption framework, the central issue is whether the prosecution can substantiate its allegations through admissible evidence while preserving the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

The $600,000 figure relates to allegations made by a DSS forensic investigator in court, not a finding of guilt. El-Rufai has denied wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty to charges, according to the report. Investigator.